Okay, so what did Judge Roy Moore do wrong...

Yeah, you know, like Virginia.

 

So, if the State of New York does not want to outlaw abortion, would that be up to them?

 

Actually, Virginia is a Commonwealth, not a state.

 

Yes.

 

To call someone a liberal just because they recognize the FACT that Christianity is not constitutionally codified is a false statement. Actually, the person who insists that the country was founded as a Christian nation is the one who is being a liberal.

 

You are correct, Christianity is not Constitutionally codified. However, neither is secular humanism (which is, in fact, a religion) yet it is taught to our children and presented as fact.

The Supreme Court lost their minds and failed to properly use the Constitution in their decisions. There is no way that a person can get the notion that religion must be banned from appearing in any way connected to religion from the First Amendment Establishment Clause which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." To come to such a conclusion, one must use a personal bias or belief, which (much to the dismay of liberals) is not law. The current attitude of seperation between church and state is not a Constitutional principle. It appears nowhere in our founding documents. It is nothing more than a lie that has been forced on American's for the last half century.

Maybe that's OK with you, but it isn't OK with me. Think of the possible ramifications (or slippery slope as some like to say) of this attitude. If they can change the meaning of a simple statement, and have it become thought of as fact, they can do it again. Their next decision could be something as stupid as claiming you don't have the right to own property if someone else wants it. Oh wait, THEY DID THAT! What's next? Is the Supreme Court going to decide to tell America that it is illegal to be a Christian? Is the death penalty going to be expanded from murderers over the age of 18 to include Christians? You think that is a stupid comment, but it is not one iota more off base that someone would have thought of a comment saying the court would ban the display of the 10 Commandments if you lived 100 years ago. Simply put, the Court is the sole source of power in America today. It is no longer possible to turn to the Constitution to defend your points. It is insignificant as a law making document.

 

While a lucid point, the problem with that arguement is that some have adopted the incorrect notion that if it's secular, then it's secular humanism. Or, worse, or it's not Christian, then it's secular humanism. I myself have been guilty of that from time to time. We Christians have become the boys who cry wolf in that arena, through no fault but our own.

 

How is secular humanism a religion? Can a person belong to several religions at the same time?

 

"Can a person belong to several religions at the same time? "
"
Sure happens all the time in many Asian countries

 

Have you seen the Heinz 57 listing on some liberal baptist churches (small b intended)? United C of C, ABC, CBF, etc..... Adds up to not much of anything!

 

By definition, a religion deals with gods. Secular Humanism cannot be a religion, as it doesn't claim an existence of a deity. It is more of a philosophy.

Also, this is from 10 Myths About Secular Humanism at http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cherry_18_1.01.html

 

I agree with C4K and CMG on this one. Though I agree with him on the constitutionality of the monument, I have always suspected his motives to be political. His book did little to change that, BTW (all it really changed was to make me think him a little flaky). LE, I'm not sure of the point that the Supreme Court refused to hear his case. It seems outrageous to me that the same judge who would throw the book at someone for not recognizing his authority as a state Supreme Court judge is quite willing to snub his nose at a federal judge.

I'm sure that, as Ken said, a Justice Moore would give a correct decision on 10C cases, but (1) as I said, I don't trust him, and (2) I don't think he has the intellectual horsepower to be a U.S. Supreme Court justice. There are plenty of other good candidates.


"If appointed to the Supreme Court, would you expect other people to have a higher regard for the federal courts than you showed when you chose to ignore the federal court system?"

Excellent question for Moore, C4K!

Will have to read the rest of the thread later. 'Sorry.