Another victory for C / S separation

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by ColoradoFB, Jul 2, 2003.

  1. ColoradoFB

    ColoradoFB
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh-oh. Get ready. Here we go again. "THE END IS NEAR!"

    If it weren't for bad luck, the religious right wouldn't have any luck at all right now.

    But the religious right put Republicans in charge of both houses of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. presidency, so they can hang their collective hats on those accomplishments. But the courts are a bit of a sticky wicket for them. And I halfway agree with them about federal courts overreaching.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's the story from a more objective news source than the liberal Americans United:

    Court Rules Against Commandments Monument
    Tue Jul 1, 7:56 PM ET

    By BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

    MONTGOMERY, Ala. - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is not above "the rule of law" and must remove a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine from the lobby of the state judicial building.

    A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in Atlanta unanimously affirmed an order from U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson that the monument violates the Constitution's prohibition on government promotion of religion. Thompson had ordered the monument removed from the building, but delayed the order while Moore appealed.

    A spokesman for Moore said the chief justice would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites). It was unclear whether the monument would stay in place during further appeals.

    "This case is far from over," said the spokesman, Tom Parker.

    The appeals court panel cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings saying that government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization.

    "If we adopted his position, the chief justice would be free to adorn the walls of the Alabama Supreme Court's courtroom with sectarian religious murals and have decidedly religious quotations painted above the bench," the panel wrote.

    "Every government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah, or a statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with authority over the premises."

    Moore put the monument in the building in the middle of the night on July 31, 2001. The 5,300-pound monument features tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and historical quotations about the place of God in law.

    Civil rights groups filed a lawsuit on behalf of three Alabama attorneys who said they had to walk past the monument every time they entered the court building and that it infringed on their First Amendment rights.

    The legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Ayesha Khan, called the ruling "a clear message from the courts."

    "Thou shalt not merge church and state," Khan said. "Justice Moore is fighting a losing battle and it's time for him to give up."

    Parker said Moore's belief is that the intention of the First Amendment to the Constitution was to "protect the freedom to worship God."

    "What the chief justice has done is certainly constitutional historically. Most federal courts simply do not understand what the framers meant by the First Amendment," Parker said.

    --from web page
     
  4. ColoradoFB

    ColoradoFB
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] Glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this. I would have spewed it all over my monitor while laughing.
     
  5. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm glad the ACLU wasn't around when some friends of mine went to a rodeo in Texas recently where it was opened with Christian prayer and prayer ended "In Jesus' Name."

    I'm glad the ACLU hasn't discovered a little town in Ohio where the Post Office has a stone mural (that has been there since the 1920s) where there is a traditional family depicted with a traditional church & steeple in the background.

    I'm glad the ACLU hasn't discovered a court house in a town I know of where the 10 Commandments are engraved in marble in the rotunda. (and has been there since at least the 1930s)

    I'm glad the ACLU hasn't discovered another town I know of where the nativity scene is still displayed on the town square at Christmas (without the secular qualifiers allowing it to meet the judicial criteria).

    I'm glad the ACLU hasn't found out yet about a certain school football team which has prayer closed "In Jesus Name" before they go out of the locker room.

    They can't be everywhere.....yet. Praise God! [​IMG]
     
  6. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    SheEagle: I'm glad our town is too small for them to notice. We display what we like and we don't need the ACLU!

    Are the Christians who are lauding this removal of The Ten Commandments the same Christians who applauded taking prayer out of the schools and wanted "Under God" removed from the pledge? :confused:

    &lt;YOU GO GIRL&gt; and a resounding

    [​IMG]
     
  7. bobfrgsn

    bobfrgsn
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2003
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a sad day when the name of Jesus is used as a red flag to incense non-Christians. I would have to say that the "Christian" use of the Name as described by SheEagle is "taking the name of the Lord in vain ... blasphemy of the highest order and not bringing glory to God. The name of Jesus and the presence of the decalog should not be "fighting words." Thank God for watch dog groups like the ACLU.
     
  8. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,625
    Likes Received:
    310
    Hummm, who is saying that the words "In Jesus' Name" were being used as red flags?
     
  9. bobfrgsn

    bobfrgsn
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2003
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course She E didn't say "using In The Name of Jesus" is a red flag. She just said that she was glad there there are places where a captive audience can have these words siad whether they like it or not. Not much Christian testimony in that ... just waving the Name!
     
  10. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since when is saying, "in Jesus name", at the close of a prayer blasphemy?

    I close all my prayers that way; does that make me a blasphemer?

    I think not!
     
  11. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    But, I thought you were all for freedom of speech? :confused: Or, does that only apply when it's anti-government, anti-church, liberal propaganda sponsored by the ACLU?

    Doesn't the ACLU have better things to do than to go around and look to see who has the 10 Commandments posted in public? Their supposed to be about civil liberties. Why don't they go help people who are really in need of help? I hardly think that displaying the 10 Commandments is going to make anyone go without food, healthcare, or die anytime in the near future.

    They're not out to help people. They're out to do away with Christian values in this country. They won't be finished until none of us are married, we're all on welfare, we are all atheists, and the abortion rate is higher than the birth rate.

    It's really sad what our country has come to be.

    BTW, I like what Andrew Jackson said about the Supreme Court when he was Prseident. They decided the law, let them enforce it.

    The courts really have no power if we don't do what they want us to. Remember, the executive branches of government have all of the enforcement powers. If the governor of Alabama doesn't think the 10 commandments should be brought down, he shouldn't send people out to the court to remove it. Wouldn't that just irk the liberals. [​IMG]
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a thought, since many on this board assert that the Ten Commandments was specific Jewish Law, wouldn't the display of them be tantamount to respecting an establishment of Judaism?

    Now mind you, I don't have a specific problem with displaying the Ten Commandments, because I don't believe they endorse a specific religion. Rather, they exemplify a historic item of law. Hence, I also wouldn't have a problem with the displaying of sections of the Code of Hammurabi.

    OTOH, I'm also not bothered by their lack of display, either.

    I'm willing to bet that the court did not have a problem with their disply, but the manner in which they were displayed.
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    You bring up a good point. It's the executive branch's job to enforce (execute), not the judicial (theirs is to interpret). In spirit, I agree with ou. OTOH, it reminds me of 1960's anti-discrimination laws, whereby the local law enforcement did not enforce the laws (ask Medgar Evers about that one). So the sowrd may possibly cut both ways.
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    What religion was being established by this display? Was the establishment clause actually violated? Did someone actually come into the court room and suffer injustice because of some religious test symbolized by the display? Was anyone forcibly converted to some form of religion through this display?

    Unless the answer to one of these questions is "yes" then there is no violation of the US Constitution.
     
  15. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not that a religion might be established, but that an establishment of religion might be recognized. I think that's what you were getting at, but I tought I'd clarify. You bring up some good questions, though.
     
  16. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well we do have both freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the USA. For most Christians saying "In Jesus Name" or "In the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" is the common way to end a prayer and actually tells who we are praying too (Not some Generic god). To not close it that way because I am afraid I am going to offend someone ,for me would be a denial of my Christian faith and of Jesus Christ. The best way to share your Christian faith is not to hide it but to share who your God is. Don't change the way you pray for the lost world. If that is offensive to someone...so what, It want be the first time someone has been offended by something somebody said and thank God the Consititution gives us the Freedom.
     

Share This Page

Loading...