ACLU Gives Up 10 Commandments Fight

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by KenH, Sep 17, 2005.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The good guys win one this time!

    LINK

    [​IMG]
     
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    We had a great decision in Snohomish County, WA sure to irritate every one. Judge said they could stay because they were not religious.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    Finally. Another Judge who decided to enforce the Constitution instead of rewrite it from the bench.
     
  4. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Chalk one up for the good guys.
     
  5. CYBERDOVE

    CYBERDOVE
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is great news!
     
  7. here now

    here now
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0

    That won't happen, Ken. This is a flawed question, since that has not, and will not happen. That does fall under free exercise.
    </font>[/QUOTE]

    It already has.

    Reed v Van Hoven

    </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong. That case was about the Pledge of Allegiance and the ACLU was not part of it. Linkie (pdf)

    If you want to know the truth about the ACLU try:
    http://www.aclu.org/
     
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296

    That won't happen, Ken. This is a flawed question, since that has not, and will not happen. That does fall under free exercise.
    </font>[/QUOTE]

    It already has.

    Reed v Van Hoven

    </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong. That case was about the Pledge of Allegiance and the ACLU was not part of it. Linkie (pdf)

    If you want to know the truth about the ACLU try:
    http://www.aclu.org/
    </font>[/QUOTE]You better do some more research Daisy. Then you can wipe the egg off your own face. ;)
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I used to respect D James' Kennedy's agenda, but since he has unfortunately decided to tread the path of misinformation and revisionism, I no longer support him, and would not recommend these sights. I do, however, still respect Dr Kennedy in other spiritual matters, and as a man of God.
    It wasn't an issue of the judge, it was an issue of the law. The circuit court correctly ruled that the display was primarily secular in nature, not religious in nature. Hence, it can stay. The ruling is consistent with previous SCOTUS rulings on the same issue. Ultimately any 10C display comes down to intent and nature. If the display is primarily religious, then it must go. If it's primatily secular, then it can stay. (the court also recognizes that a secular display need not be devoid of a religious nature altogether, and that a religious display need not be devoid of a secular nature altogether.)
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    I'll stand by my statement.

    This judge made a decision based on the law instead of his personal feelings, whatever they might be.

    Sounds a lot like what you said, just fewer words.
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, but I had much more fun typing all of that.
     
  13. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    Yes, but I had much more fun typing all of that. </font>[/QUOTE][​IMG]

    I'm too slow a typist to waste words. ;)
     
  14. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm having trouble finding the decision, but the document I did find references it:
     
  15. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    There are many references to this case. One of the most persistent interpretations of it is:

    If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud. (Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965.)
     
  16. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    I still think:
     
  17. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, there are references, but what does the actual ruling say? It's the original source that counts.

    I don't know why it is so difficult to find.
     

Share This Page

Loading...