Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Victory For Freedom

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Victory For Freedom

    Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal

    Tuesday July 1, 2003 8:49 PM


    ATLANTA (AP) - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.

    The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who said that the 2-ton granite monument, placed there by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

    ``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 three-judge panel said.

    ``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 rotunda of the courthouse in the middle of the night two summers ago. The monument features tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and historical quotations about the place of God in law.

    He was sued by several attorneys who said the monument infringed on their religious freedom. In November, a federal judge ordered the monument removed but then decided it could stay pending appeal.
    from the Associated Press...



    It's good to see some people respect the first amendment.
    To us, it is the BEAST.

  • #2
    He was sued by several attorneys who said the monument infringed on their religious freedom.
    How was their religious freedom denied by the monument? Strange title, Sava.

    Comment


    • #3
      It does not interfer with with the free exercise of religion, it violates the anti-establishment clause. The idiot reporters are just too stupid to to report law matters.
      Last edited by Lefty Scaevola; July 1, 2003, 22:00.
      Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
      Japher: "crap, did I just post in this thread?"
      "Bloody hell, Lefty.....number one in my list of persons I have no intention of annoying, ever." Bugs ****ing Bunny
      From a 6th grader who readily adpated to internet culture: "Pay attention now, because your opinions suck"

      Comment


      • #4
        "I'm moving to the Left" - Lancer

        "I imagine the neighbors on your right are estatic." - Slowwhand

        Comment


        • #5
          United States is a republic anyway -- not a theocracy.
          A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

          Comment


          • #6
            The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.

            Join Eventis, the land of spam and unspeakable horrors!

            Comment


            • #7
              The idiot reporters are just too stupid to to report law matters.
              Exactly. The American Government... is not... and should not... be Christian... or Judeo-Christian... or THEISTIC in any way. Even if the vast majority of people hold theistic views, putting such views into government constitutes establishment. However benign it may be, it's still establishment, it's against the Constitution... and frankly, it's contrary to freedom.

              I cheer this ruling as it flies in the face of selfish, regressive, theocratic ideals that many people hold.
              To us, it is the BEAST.

              Comment


              • #8


                Good ruling... dumb judge.
                “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                Comment


                • #9


                  If the jackass wants to express his religion in a STATE-SPONSORED court of law, established as a SECULAR democracy not a CHRISTIAN democracy, he can tattoo that stuff across his forehead, the lousy bum. If he doesn't like it...too effing bad.
                  The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

                  The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    and frankly, it's contrary to freedom.
                    How so?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      How so?
                      Establishment... etc...

                      The belief in God is a religious one. Placing references to God in courts, on money, in national pledges, the state is ESTABLISHING the public's belief in that religious concept. That goes against the first amendment... which outlines both freedom OF religion, and freedom FROM religion.
                      To us, it is the BEAST.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yeah, but I see Berzerker's point. This judge placing these Commandments to nothing to diminish other people's 'freedom'. You might say it is a slippery slope, but that's another argument. This act, by itself, didn't result in less freedom for the amount of time that the slab was there, and now, suddenly, the people got their freedom back.
                        “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                        - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The thread title is wrong, but the verdict on the decision was right as hell. It is blatantly unconstitutional.

                          Funny, I thought this thread was going to be a troll...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            didn't result in less freedom for the amount of time that the slab was there
                            with this kind of freedom, you don't realize it's gone until you're being burned at the stake...
                            To us, it is the BEAST.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If a judge is basing decisions on Christian principles, there'd be a problem.

                              But the 10 Commandments can represent something other than religion - they can also represent a basic moral code that is pretty much good no matter who or what you believe in.

                              "Thou shall not kill", etc...what's wrong with posting that? I mean, hell, many of the prohibitions in the 10 Commandments are against the law anyway, and some, such as "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" are relevant as hell in a court of law.
                              Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
                              Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X