Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Two Bills Drive Message Boards > Politics, Polls, and Pundits > The 10 Commandments Judge


Posted by: jimshiz Nov 13 2003, 01:09 PM
So, what do you all think?

The Constitution does not include any statement of "separation of church and state". In fact, by removing Judge Roy Moore from the bench, they are discriminating against him in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

He is being removed because of his belief in God. The Alabama oath of his office requires his allegiance to God. A Federal Judge intervening in this issue probably violates the 10th Amendment by violating a state's rights.

The judges who removed him are all state judges though. But, the majority is not always right.

I think we need to start a petitition to nominate Judge Roy Moore to the U.S. Supreme Court. There probably already is such petitions going.

Unfortunately, it would probably be a 3rd rail topic that would make President George W. Bush a target of the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union.

blood boiling yet? or do you agree?

JimKrazy

Posted by: Damian Nov 13 2003, 02:32 PM
His refusal to follow the law is the reason he was removed. If a judge refuses to obey the law, how can he sit as a judge on those very laws? I don't care if you are in the public, private, or military sector; if you refuse to follow the directives of your superior (in this case a higher court), you will be fired.

Posted by: Jesus H. Christ Nov 13 2003, 02:35 PM
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Nov 13 2003, 01:09 PM)
So, what do you all think?

The Constitution does not include any statement of "separation of church and state". In fact, by removing Judge Roy Moore from the bench, they are discriminating against him in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

He is being removed because of his belief in God. The Alabama oath of his office requires his allegiance to God. A Federal Judge intervening in this issue probably violates the 10th Amendment by violating a state's rights.

The judges who removed him are all state judges though. But, the majority is not always right.

I think we need to start a petitition to nominate Judge Roy Moore to the U.S. Supreme Court. There probably already is such petitions going.

Unfortunately, it would probably be a 3rd rail topic that would make President George W. Bush a target of the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union.

blood boiling yet? or do you agree?

JimKrazy

You will all be judged one day, my son. Those of you who mock, those of you who laugh at me, those of you who don't believe...
You guessed it...I will condemn you to HELL!

Posted by: Mickey Nov 13 2003, 02:54 PM
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Nov 13 2003, 01:09 PM)
So, what do you all think?

The Constitution does not include any statement of "separation of church and state".  In fact, by removing Judge Roy Moore from the bench, they are discriminating against him in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

He is being removed because of his belief in God.  The Alabama oath of his office requires his allegiance to God.  A Federal Judge intervening in this issue probably violates the 10th Amendment by violating a state's rights.

The judges who removed him are all state judges though.  But, the majority is not always right.

I think we need to start a petitition to nominate Judge Roy Moore to the U.S. Supreme Court.  There probably already is such petitions going.

Unfortunately, it would probably be a 3rd rail topic that would make President George W. Bush a target of the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union.

blood boiling yet?  or do you agree?

JimKrazy

Echoing Damian's statement, this guy was issued several orders by higher courts and his superiors. You can't have a judge do that. He pursued all legal avenues at his disposal to prevail in that particular controversey. Having lost at every step of the way, it was time to honor the binding orders of higher courts and officials. He refused. For that he was justly removed.

As for the larger question you raise about the constitution not specifically containing the words "separation of church and state", that principle has been well respected and embedded in the fabric of our nation since the beginning. Madison and Jefferson both advocated a "wall of separation" between church and state. The constitution specifically prohibits the state from establishing a religion, ie, the so-called establishment clause. It is found in the same amendment as that which guarantees the free exercise of religion. The logical interpretation of this apparent conflict of ideas is that people on thier own can engage in whatever religious practices (within reason, ie, no bigamy) they wish and the state is to stay out of it all together. You can't argue for a broad interpretation of the free exercise part of the First Amendment and then argue for a limited interpretation of the establishment part. The logical interpretation I point out permits a broad reading of both. It has resulted in the US being among the most "religious" of all western nations despite the constant complaint from so many pulpits that we are a sea of iniquity.

Strange, it seems the more "christian" we become, the more immoral and in need of becoming even more "christian" we are. The gooder we get the badder we are. biggrin.gif


Posted by: fisheralum Nov 13 2003, 03:26 PM
Besides...it could be argued that putting in sign that says "thou shalt not steal"in front of a building full of lawyers, creates a hostile work environment. biggrin.gif

Posted by: jimshiz Nov 13 2003, 03:42 PM
I will never obey an order by my superiors that I believe is immoral.

The judge is NOT establishing a religion by displaying the 10 Commandments along with the other "founding documents" on the same monument. The founders clearly intended that this nation be populated by citizens who believe in God. But, they rightly acknowledged that the government should not be the one to dictate which God.

The state judge was initially given an order by a federal judge who had no place to give such an order. If the federal judge was obeyed, then the state judge would have been disobeying his oath of office.

I think we need to do less interpretation. Too many judges are creating laws that are UnConstitutional.

Come on - I think we can do better than just 4 replies so far !!!

JimKrazy

Posted by: GG Nov 13 2003, 03:46 PM
QUOTE
Come on - I think we can do better than just 4 replies so far !!!


We can. But when it's a fairly convincing argument for one side, the conversation usually stops.

Unless you bring up the telephone pole...

Posted by: blzrul Nov 13 2003, 03:48 PM
Good riddance to bad rubbish.

He ran for the office based on the fact that he did the SAME THING in his previous office. This wasn't about religion, it was about politics.

It's good to know that things can come out right in the end.

Ya hear that Shrub? laugh.gif

Posted by: Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog Nov 13 2003, 03:51 PM
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Nov 13 2003, 03:42 PM)
I will never obey an order by my superiors that I believe is immoral.

The judge is NOT establishing a religion by displaying the 10 Commandments along with the other "founding documents" on the same monument. The founders clearly intended that this nation be populated by citizens who believe in God. But, they rightly acknowledged that the government should not be the one to dictate which God.

The state judge was initially given an order by a federal judge who had no place to give such an order. If the federal judge was obeyed, then the state judge would have been disobeying his oath of office.

I think we need to do less interpretation. Too many judges are creating laws that are UnConstitutional.

Come on - I think we can do better than just 4 replies so far !!!

JimKrazy

What if a private or sergeant or lieutenant in the middle of the Iraq war told his superior officer after a direct order that God told him "thou shall not kill" and it is immoral? He shouldn't be court marshalled?

He shouldn't obey orders from a superior that he found immoral?

It took Moore, what, an entire career before he put that monument there (I know he has them strategically placed elsewhere, yes)? By not allowing him to put it there are they denying him his right to his feelings about the Ten Commandments? he must follow the law. A Judge, perhaps, above all else.

Posted by: jimshiz Nov 13 2003, 03:53 PM
QUOTE (GG @ Nov 13 2003, 03:46 PM)
QUOTE
Come on - I think we can do better than just 4 replies so far !!!


We can. But when it's a fairly convincing argument for one side, the conversation usually stops.

Unless you bring up the telephone pole...

Thanks for letting me know that my arguments were so convincing.

Posted by: erynthered Nov 13 2003, 03:56 PM
QUOTE (GG @ Nov 13 2003, 04:46 PM)
QUOTE
Come on - I think we can do better than just 4 replies so far !!!


We can. But when it's a fairly convincing argument for one side, the conversation usually stops.

Unless you bring up the telephone pole...

Wait, Wait, Wait........I see no links or any media supporting that there is a God.
It cant be true.

Course.................. there could be one.

And....................... there may be one.

There are a few people who say there is one though, mmmmmmmm.
jk






(All in fun. That would be some sarcasm for some that didnt know it.)

Posted by: Mickey Nov 13 2003, 04:09 PM
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Nov 13 2003, 03:42 PM)
I will never obey an order by my superiors that I believe is immoral.

The judge is NOT establishing a religion by displaying the 10 Commandments along with the other "founding documents" on the same monument. The founders clearly intended that this nation be populated by citizens who believe in God. But, they rightly acknowledged that the government should not be the one to dictate which God.

The state judge was initially given an order by a federal judge who had no place to give such an order. If the federal judge was obeyed, then the state judge would have been disobeying his oath of office.

I think we need to do less interpretation. Too many judges are creating laws that are UnConstitutional.

Come on - I think we can do better than just 4 replies so far !!!

JimKrazy

You are missing the fact that it was a State Court that voted to remove him. The vote was unanimous.

Who would you have be the ultimate authority when it comes to interpreting the federal constitution? For our entire history it has been up to the federal courts to do so. Unless you want to tear up that portion of the constitution that makes the federal courts the third branch of government, it is their province, not that of some state court judge, to interpret the constitution of the United States. His refusal to obey their order was wrong and in violation of his oath to obey the law. There is nothing in his oath that would permit him to disobey the order of a federal court on an issue of federal law.

The next step is for him to be disbarred.

By the way, the establishment clause states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Your point that that the "founders clearly intended that this nation be populated by citizens who believe in God. But ... that the government should not be the one to dictate which God." Is not supported by the actual words. Those words do not limit the prohibition to the narrow goal of preventing the promotion of one faith over another, it refers to the establishment of religion period, no qualifications and certainly not the limitation you read into the document.

Again, you can't argue on the one hand for a literal and extremely limited interpretation of this part of the First Amendment and then argue for a broad and virtually unlimited interpretation of the scope of the other freedoms listed in the First. That is simply outcome determinative. You pick and choose the freedoms that suit you and deny to others the ones that don't.

Posted by: jimshiz Nov 13 2003, 04:24 PM
QUOTE (Mickey @ Nov 13 2003, 04:09 PM)
You are missing the fact that it was a State Court that voted to remove him.  The vote was unanimous.

I pointed out that fact myself in my very first post:

"The judges who removed him are all state judges though. But, the majority is not always right."

Posted by: jimshiz Nov 13 2003, 04:28 PM
QUOTE (Mickey @ Nov 13 2003, 04:09 PM)
By the way, the establishment clause states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Your point that that the "founders clearly intended that this nation be populated by citizens who believe in God.  But ... that the government should not be the one to dictate which God."  Is not supported by the actual words.  Those words do not limit the prohibition to the narrow goal of preventing the promotion of one faith  over another, it refers to the establishment of religion period, no qualifications and certainly not the limitation you read into the document.

OK - I guess the 1st Amendment is supposed to allow for those who don't believe in any God.

But, it seems like lately there are lots of laws being made that "respect an establishment of NO religion". One can almost consider "NO religion" as "religion" itself.

Posted by: DC Tom Nov 13 2003, 05:44 PM
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Nov 13 2003, 02:09 PM)
So, what do you all think?

The Constitution does not include any statement of "separation of church and state". In fact, by removing Judge Roy Moore from the bench, they are discriminating against him in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

He is being removed because of his belief in God. The Alabama oath of his office requires his allegiance to God. A Federal Judge intervening in this issue probably violates the 10th Amendment by violating a state's rights.

The judges who removed him are all state judges though. But, the majority is not always right.

I think we need to start a petitition to nominate Judge Roy Moore to the U.S. Supreme Court. There probably already is such petitions going.

Unfortunately, it would probably be a 3rd rail topic that would make President George W. Bush a target of the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union.

blood boiling yet? or do you agree?

JimKrazy

I think the Alabama State Constitution is most applicable:

QUOTE
SECTION 3

Religious freedom.
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, 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.


I even made it easy on you: what's in italics is arguably applicable (i.e. a taxpaying resident of Alabama is arguably funding the judge's Christian evangicalism, and the potential for a non-Christian's privileges being violated in said judge's courtroom most definitely exists). What's in bold italics is inarguably applicable (i.e. the judge did by law give preference to a religious denomination, did by law turn his court into a place of worship, thereby compelling people to attend, and did so with taxpayer money.) That's what, three clear and two arguable violations of state law as outlined in the state constitution by a state judge who swore an oath to uphold said constitution. Period. End of story. He broke both his oath of office and the law, and was rightfully removed from the bench.

Posted by: Mickey Nov 13 2003, 06:17 PM
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Nov 13 2003, 04:28 PM)
QUOTE (Mickey @ Nov 13 2003, 04:09 PM)
By the way, the establishment clause states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Your point that that the "founders clearly intended that this nation be populated by citizens who believe in God.  But ... that the government should not be the one to dictate which God."  Is not supported by the actual words.  Those words do not limit the prohibition to the narrow goal of preventing the promotion of one faith  over another, it refers to the establishment of religion period, no qualifications and certainly not the limitation you read into the document.

OK - I guess the 1st Amendment is supposed to allow for those who don't believe in any God.

But, it seems like lately there are lots of laws being made that "respect an establishment of NO religion". One can almost consider "NO religion" as "religion" itself.

The absence of a thing is a thing?


Posted by: jimshiz Nov 14 2003, 09:18 AM
QUOTE (Mickey @ Nov 13 2003, 06:17 PM)
The absence of a thing is a thing?

Yes, the absence of believing in God is atheism. And atheism is just another religion. But, people who are atheists have more rights than believers when it comes to issues of God in public places.

Posted by: Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog Nov 14 2003, 09:29 AM
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Nov 14 2003, 09:18 AM)
Yes, the absence of believing in God is atheism. And atheism is just another religion. But, people who are atheists have more rights than believers when it comes to issues of God in public places.

Wow. You're actually right. I finally understand where you're coming from. Atheists DO have more rights to bring things to public places than believers. Unlike believers, who can't apparently bring what they believe in, atheists have the right to bring what they believe in.

They have the right to bring nothing.

Oops.

Posted by: DC Tom Nov 14 2003, 09:38 AM
QUOTE (Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog @ Nov 14 2003, 10:29 AM)
Wow. You're actually right. I finally understand where you're coming from. Atheists DO have more rights to bring things to public places than believers. Unlike believers, who can't apparently bring what they believe in, atheists have the right to bring what they believe in.

They have the right to bring nothing.

Oops.

To take it a step further...in having no religious icons in public places, it is in effect government sponsorship of atheism, and removing the Ten Commandments from in front of a courthouse is thus unconstitutional. biggrin.gif

Of course, that logical fallacy breaks down when you consider the difference between "atheist", which the law isn't, and "secular, which the law is. I suspect, though, there's more than a few (though by no means all) devout Christians who can't perceive that difference.

Posted by: RCow Nov 14 2003, 10:04 AM
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Nov 14 2003, 09:18 AM)
Yes, the absence of believing in God is atheism.  And atheism is just another religion.  But, people who are atheists have more rights than believers when it comes to issues of God in public places.

What establishes belief in God?

Do you worship God as a stone tablet? A Gold Statue? Is God merely words on paper? Is God actually a cross, a menorah or does he take form, like Virgin Mary sightings, in knots of a tree or a rusty door?

Is God absent in an empty room? If there is nothing to worship then God must not exist in that room.

Why is it that so many "believers" need symbols to reassure themselves that God exsists? Why do belivers need to parade symbols in public places like political campaign signs?

Isn't it just idol worship, no different than a 13-year old boy's obsession with Britney Spears pictures?

Posted by: Damian Nov 14 2003, 10:54 AM
Imagine how much bloodshed, violence, and hatred could be avoided in this world if everyone would just follow their own religion in a quiet manner and not try to force it upon everyone else.

Posted by: Buffalo 65 Nov 14 2003, 11:22 AM
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Nov 13 2003, 01:09 PM)
So, what do you all think?

The Constitution does not include any statement of "separation of church and state". In fact, by removing Judge Roy Moore from the bench, they are discriminating against him in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

He is being removed because of his belief in God. The Alabama oath of his office requires his allegiance to God. A Federal Judge intervening in this issue probably violates the 10th Amendment by violating a state's rights.

The judges who removed him are all state judges though. But, the majority is not always right.

I think we need to start a petitition to nominate Judge Roy Moore to the U.S. Supreme Court. There probably already is such petitions going.

Unfortunately, it would probably be a 3rd rail topic that would make President George W. Bush a target of the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union.

blood boiling yet? or do you agree?

JimKrazy

Let me ask you would you be all for states rights when it comes to the so called "partial birth abortion" (the right's term)
bill which the Feds plan on enforcing even though judges in some states have overturned it as being unconstitutional?

Posted by: jimshiz Nov 14 2003, 11:40 AM
QUOTE (Buffalo 65 @ Nov 14 2003, 11:22 AM)
Let me ask you would you be all for states rights when it comes to the so called "partial birth abortion" (the right's term)
bill which the Feds plan on enforcing even though judges in some states have overturned it as being unconstitutional?

No, because abortion is murder - especially this form of abortion, and murder is universally immoral.

Posted by: Buffalo 65 Nov 14 2003, 11:46 AM
QUOTE (jimshiz @ Nov 14 2003, 11:40 AM)
QUOTE (Buffalo 65 @ Nov 14 2003, 11:22 AM)
Let me ask you would you be all for states rights when it comes to the so called "partial birth abortion" (the right's term)
bill which the Feds plan on enforcing even though judges in some states have overturned it as being unconstitutional?

No, because abortion is murder - especially this form of abortion, and murder is universally immoral.

For some reason I saw that response coming a million miles away.


The right likes to throw around terms like "States Rights" but don't care for their application
when it comes to things they don't agree with such as the right to choice or California's medical Marijuana law.

Posted by: jimshiz Nov 14 2003, 12:01 PM
QUOTE (Buffalo 65 @ Nov 14 2003, 11:46 AM)
The right likes to throw around terms like "States Rights" but don't care for their application
when it comes to things they don't agree with such as the right to choice or California's medical Marijuana law.

Happy to oblige...

I currently don't have a problem with CA or any other state allowing medical marajuana use. It is when the use gets out of hand, is abused, or is used for other than medical use that innocent people will be harmed by it. When innocent people are harmed, hopefully the state would step in - it should not be a Federal issue. But, if drug trafficking is a Federal issue, then the Federal gov't might have some say about it.

Posted by: Damian Nov 14 2003, 12:16 PM
People should only use the allowed "safe" recreational drugs like nicotine, alcohol, and Viagra. No harm will come to them...

Posted by: CookieG Nov 14 2003, 12:32 PM
A little more to stir the debate

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=816&ncid=816&e=8&u=/ap/20031114/ap_on_re_us/prayer_lawsuit

RICHMOND, Va. - Pagans can pray, too, a federal judge ruled Thursday in a case brought against county officials by a Wiccan who was barred from saying a prayer to open board of supervisors meetings.



U.S. District Court Judge Dennis W. Dohnal said the Chesterfield County board discriminated against Cyndi Simpson when it prohibited her from joining a list of clergy who deliver the invocations.


Wiccans consider themselves witches, pagans or neo-pagans, and say their religion is based on respect for the earth, nature and the cycle of the seasons.


"Chesterfield's nonsectarian invocations are traditionally made to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition," County Attorney Steven L. Micas wrote in a letter to Simpson in September 2002.


The judge said the board violated Simpson's constitutional right of equal and free expression of her religious beliefs, while allowing Christians to practice theirs by delivering the "legislative prayer," which has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) for use by a governing body


MORE

Posted by: Damian Nov 14 2003, 01:07 PM
Pretty funny considering Christianity borrowed heavily its ideals from Paganism.

Christmas=Feast of Mithras/winter solstice
Easter (name of the pagan goddess of spring), celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon of spring, just like the pagans, Easter egg hunts
All Saints Day-Sahmain

Posted by: Buffalo 65 Nov 16 2003, 11:49 PM
QUOTE (Damian @ Nov 14 2003, 12:16 PM)
People should only use the allowed "safe" recreational drugs like nicotine, alcohol, and Viagra. No harm will come to them...

To add further it seems the nutball kristianrightwingkonservative lawmakers responsible for the so called "Holly's Law"
, a pathetic attempt to ban the morning after contraceptive pill for women while tugging at heartstrings of the moralists over a grand total of two deaths that may have been related to RU-486.



Now how fukked up is this and how ludicrous the right are when refusing to acknolwdge the deaths of 186 men from Viagara abuse.



The kristianright is truly whacked.

Posted by: jimshiz Nov 17 2003, 11:30 PM
QUOTE (Buffalo 65 @ Nov 16 2003, 11:49 PM)
The kristianright is truly whacked.

I'm a Christian and I am on the right. Do you mean all Right-Wing Christians are "whacked"?

Posted by: Mickey Nov 18 2003, 12:28 AM
QUOTE (DC Tom @ Nov 14 2003, 09:38 AM)
QUOTE (Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog @ Nov 14 2003, 10:29 AM)
Wow. You're actually right. I finally understand where you're coming from. Atheists DO have more rights to bring things to public places than believers. Unlike believers, who can't apparently bring what they believe in, atheists have the right to bring what they believe in.

They have the right to bring nothing.

Oops.

To take it a step further...in having no religious icons in public places, it is in effect government sponsorship of atheism, and removing the Ten Commandments from in front of a courthouse is thus unconstitutional. biggrin.gif

Of course, that logical fallacy breaks down when you consider the difference between "atheist", which the law isn't, and "secular, which the law is. I suspect, though, there's more than a few (though by no means all) devout Christians who can't perceive that difference.

Not even if you hit 'em on the head with a 4 ton monument? biggrin.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)