posted 08-29-2003 11:05 PM            

here is a copy of the decision in the Ten Commandments case. While I do not agree 100 % with everything here, I think that the decision is the correct one (and that Moore is a wacko).

"In religious-symbols cases, context is the touchstone."

The best quote:

So eager was he to have the district court judge conduct the view "just like a juror would," that counsel for the Chief Justice volunteered his help in arranging parking for the district court judge at the Judicial Building. Any conceivable error was not just invited error, but invited error with a parking space.

I love it when one lawyer calls another lawyer an idiot.

posted 08-30-2003 02:36 AM            

too big a damn portion...for sure...

the crux of the matter I have been trying to illustrate in the "state judge tells the fed to stick it" is, the federal judge has no basis in law to force the removeal of the statue of the 10 commandments...

the issue is past a religious one...immediately following national press coverage of this issue liberals started comparing it to racism...resurrecting old memories of door blocking and all that...as if states rights, an expressly pronounced "right" scribed by the founders was a dirty word...bad practice and wrong and unfair....I knew at that point was when the leftist idealogs were severely concerned about the bigger issue...of the federal "right" to impose and enforce restrictions on the states...of this nature...even when statues and issues of the like have been duely mandated by the people...

moo

posted 08-30-2003 10:30 AM            

"Terrorists often use religion as a disguise..."
-- President Terrorist, a "Christian" who bombed a city of 5 million people

posted 08-30-2003 11:38 AM            

I especially think he is a wacko because all of this grandstanding over the monument has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with politics.

If I worked at that building, I certainly would not want to have to negotiate around the judge and his prayer meetings every morning. If I worked for the Judge, I would wonder if the fact that my religious views differed from his would have an impact on my job reviews. I don’t think of it as a couple of crybabies complaining, but rather as a couple of courageous people standing up to a bully who is trying to impose his personal King James version of faith on the rest of us.

Seeker, the opinion listed above clearly states what the judgement is based upon. If there a particular part of that opinion that you have issue with, please list it.

Finally, I would like to make one last comment,

It seems to me that this monument has taken on a religeous significance totally separate from its intention. Some of the people who are all worked up over this are pontificating over the object, and not the concept.

The monument itself reads in part:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD
THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME
THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE
THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN
REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY, TO KEEP IT HOLY

From the Merriam Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: graven image
Function: noun
Etymology: graven, past participle of 1grave
Date: 14th century
: an object of worship carved usually from wood or stone :

This sounds suspiciously like the monument itself. if it is my religious belief that this monument is an abomination, a carved idol for worship, am I not within my rights to demand that it be removed from a government structure?

Would you allow a large statue of Buddha to be installed in its place? No, then why should I have to put up with this?

posted 08-30-2003 03:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
.....moo...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:

I challenge anyone to produce the *law* the federal judge based his ruling on...

---

What part of "No religious test...ever" is beyond your comprehension?

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
[i] the federal judge has no basis in law to force the removeal of the statue of the 10 commandments...

the federal "right" to impose and enforce restrictions on the states...of this nature...even when statues and issues of the like have been duely mandated by the people...moo...

---

>THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Article. III.
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; --<

Such as the casr filed by the two people who were offended that their' tax monies funded Moore's partisan "establishment of his religion as exclusive to the Alabama Supreme Court".

>THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.<

What part of posting relevant excerpts from the actual document upon which Federal judges based their decision, is "pissing"?

Pissing?

"No Pissing Allowed"
Mostly wisdom of OSHO/ an enlightened Master of whom I had the privilege....

Quote:

In my childhood, in my neighborhood, lived the richest man of the city.
He had the only palatial building -- all marble.
Around his house there was a beautiful garden, lawn.
One day I was standing just outside his fence, and he was telling something to his gardener.
I told him, "Dada" -- he was known as dada; dada means big brother.
The whole town called him Dada, even people who were older than him, because he was rich.
I said to him, "You should remember one thing.
Put a few posters around the garden that nobody should urinate here,
because I have seen a few people urinating around your house."

And it was a good place to urinate because a big garden, trees ... you could go behind them
.
He said, "That's right!" The next day he painted a few instructions around the garden: "No Pissing Allowed" -- and since that day the whole town has been pissing around his house!

And yes, it is true I have seen people pissing there; that's how I got the idea. And I have enquired why people have started pissing.
"They say, `When we read the board suddenly the urge ... we remember that the bladder is full;
otherwise we were engaged in other kinds of things and other thoughts were there.
Who thinks of the bladder? When it becomes absolutely necessary, then only one thinks of it
.
"`But when we look at these boards suddenly the bladder becomes the most important thing, and one feels the place is good, that's why the board has been put there -
- people must be pissing here.
And we see that there are many marks, many people have pissed already,
so we feel it is perfectly right.'"
It is a simple thing: If you prohibit anything, you provoke, you give a challenge."

posted 08-30-2003 05:46 PM            

Take note of Isaiah 48:17,18***"I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself......O, if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! (or in Christian times, principles) Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea."

Likewise, whether prayer is, or is not, allowed to remain in schools is of little consequence to God or those desiring to do His will. Parents are commanded to inculcate in the minds and hearts of their children what God considers evil or good, and the reasoning behind it.

The majority of the worlds people could care less about what God considers good or evil. For just that reason we have a world filled with selfishness, hatred, all sorts of wicked acts to numerous to mention.

posted 08-30-2003 07:07 PM            

for a judge to do what this one did to alabama there has to be existing case law to cite...or a law that defines the actions of the court...

this clearly does not exist...

posted 08-30-2003 07:28 PM            

This issue was manufactured by the AC to energize the base.

posted 08-30-2003 09:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
so far knowthis and shatoga have not met the challenge...maybe it's because you don't understand the law ?

for a judge to do what this one did to alabama there has to be existing case law to cite...or a law that defines the actions of the court...

this clearly does not exist...

btw...well put jeanie

---

Well Seeker, here is some of the case law cited in the ten commandments decision.

Which one do you disagree with?

• King v. Richmond County, No. 02-14146, slip op. 2541, at 2552 (11th Cir. May 30, 2003),

• Ala. Freethought Ass’n v. Moore, 893 F. Supp. 1522 (N.D. Ala. 1995);

• Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 121, 54 S. Ct. 330, 338 (1934)

• de novo. Ga. State Conf. of NAACP Branches v. Cox, 183 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 1999)

• 
  Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 1161 (1997)

• Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Sep. of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 485, 102 S. Ct. 752, 765 (1982).

• Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687, 692 (11th Cir. 1987) (quoting Sch. Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 224 n.9, 83o23 S. Ct. 1560, 1572 n.9 (1963)),

• ACLU v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 698 F.2d 1098, 1107 (11th Cir. 1983)

• County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 589, 109 S. Ct. 3086, 3099 (1989).

• Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2655 (1992),

• Jaffree v. Wallace, 705 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1983), prob. juris. noted and aff’d in part, 466 U.S. 924, 104 S. Ct. 1704,

• Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs of Mobile County v. Jaffree, 466 U.S. 926, 104 S. Ct. 1707, and aff’d in part, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985),

• Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, 81 S. Ct. 1680,
  1683-84 (1961).

• Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41, 101 S. Ct. 192, 194 (1980) (footnote omitted).

• Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971).

• Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 398, 113 S. Ct. 2141, 2150 (1993)

• Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573,
  105 S. Ct. 1504, 1511 (1985).

• Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S. Ct. 3330 (1983).

• Adland v. Russ, 307 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2002) (returning a large, granite Ten Commandments monument from storage to a prominent position on the capitol grounds would violate the
  Establishment Clause), cert. denied

• 123 S. Ct. 1909 (2003); Ind. Civil Liberties Union v. O’Bannon, 259 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2001) (erecting a seven-foot tall,
  11,500-pound limestone monument, one side of which contained the Ten Commandments, on statehouse grounds would violate the Establishment Clause)

• cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1162 (2002); Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292 (7th Cir. 2000) (displaying a Ten Commandments monument, identical to the one involved in Adland, on the lawn of the municipal building violated the Establishment Clause), cert. denied,

posted 08-30-2003 11:53 PM            

nevermind stuart...how about an easy one...sample this for me...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

so how is any federal decision lawful since it is against the LAW and constitution to make those laws....

HMMMM ?

posted 08-31-2003 01:18 AM            

Seeker, the problem is so obvious, why can't you see it? The concept of religion is so vague to begin with. It becomes a slippery slope. A pedophile could claim that molesting children is part of his "religion". You mean to tell me that the government should just let it slide based on the circumstances? Religion is a free ride to law breaking?

posted 08-31-2003 11:20 AM               

Baha’i World Faith:
Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.

Buddism:
Hurt not others in ways that you would find hurtful.

Christianity:
As you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.

Confucianism:
Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Hinduism:
Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.

Islamic:
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

Jainism:
In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.

Judaism:
That which is hateful unto you, do not impose on others.

Native American Spiritualism:
All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One.

Plato:
May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.

Shinto:
The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form.

Sikhism:
As thou deemest thyself, so deem others.

Socrates:
Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you.

Sufism:
The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this.

Taoism:
Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.

Thales:
Refraining from doing what we blame in others.

Wicca:
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Yoruba (Nigeria):
One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.

Zoroastrianism:
That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.

posted 09-01-2003 09:11 AM            

This issue was manufactured to energize the base.
"Keep 'em pissed off, keep 'em contributing to Bush's coffers!"

posted 09-01-2003 10:01 AM            

Monumental Words
By Gary Schneeberger, CitizenLink editor

The Ten Commandments are just one part of the monument at the center of the controversy involving Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. Take a look at what else is written there.

The Ten Commandments are unquestionably the centerpiece of the monument that's put Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore at the center of a national controversy. And they are certainly the reason that controversy erupted in the first place — the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal pressure groups sued Moore because they didn't like God's laws on display for all to see in the Alabama judicial center.

But the Commandments are hardly the only text on the 4-by-4-foot, 5,280-pound monument that Moore commissioned with private funds and installed on Aug. 1, 2001. In addition to the Ten Commandments, etched on the top panel into stone tablets, there are a variety of quotes spotlighting the godly roots of American law.

One is from Thomas Jefferson, the founding father liberals cite as the father of the idea that a "separation of church and state" means God can't be acknowledged in the public square. Another is from the Alabama Constitution, which Moore swore to uphold when he took his oath of office. You're heard him say that removing the monument would force him to disobey his oath — you'll see below why he feels that way.

These quotes, and others like them, are often cited by Moore in arguing his case that there was a time in our nation when honoring the sovereignty of our Creator was not against the law.

FRONT PANEL

The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. — George Mason, 1772

Laws of nature and of nature's God — Declaration of Independence, 1776

The transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. — James Madison

This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; . . . upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. — William Blackstone

LEFT SIDE PANEL

The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our government upon the moral directions of the Creator. — Legislative History

One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. — Pledge of Allegiance, 1954

Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. — James Wilson

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? — Thomas Jefferson

RIGHT SIDE PANEL

We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama. — Constitution of Alabama

In God we trust. — National Motto 1956

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
between their lov'd home and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto — "In God Is Our Trust,"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. — National Anthem

BACK PANEL

Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? — George Washington

So help me God. — Judiciary Act of 1789

The greater part of evidence will always consist of the testimony of witnesses. This testimony is given under those solemn obligations which an appeal to the God of Truth impose; and if oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights would become insecure. — John Jay

posted 09-01-2003 11:16 AM            

He was referring to a part of the ruling that said if Moore's arguments were adopted, "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 decision's author, Judge Ed Carnes, an appointee of former President George Bush and widely regarded as a staunchly conservative jurist, went out of his way to warn Moore.

Carnes wrote that Moore's defense implies that he is not subject to the order of any federal court. Similar positions were taken by Southern segregationist governors in the 1960s, Carnes wrote.

"Any notion of high government officials being above the law did not save those governors from having to obey federal court orders," Carnes wrote, "and it will not save this chief

The American Taliban.
>religious fundamentalists, who have been trying to take over local, state, and national institutions for a long time -- almost 400 years as a matter of fact, ever since Governor William Bradford and the Puritans of Plymouth Colony...objected to non-fundamentalists taking the day off from work to observe Christmas, an event Puritans regarded as a pagan if not popish holiday.
< http://www.counterpunch.org/vest08282003.html

11th Circuit's July 1 decision
The decision's author, Judge Ed Carnes, an appointee of former President George Bush and widely regarded as a staunchly conservative jurist,< http://www.debategate.com/forums/PIC/posts/87270.html

A MANUFACTURED EVENT:
A Republican judge ruled in such manner as to energize the base.
As always the truth is buried under the Bushes.

Moore's "christian" Principles, or;
Moore hypocrisy:

>Also, during his period as a judge in the state court, he awarded custody of two minor children to a father who had been found guilty of abuse of those children rather than to the mother, based simply on the fact that the father professed to be Christian, and the mother was a practicing Wiccan.
<

posted 09-01-2003 05:05 PM            

>GOP senators have spent the week accusing Democrats of religious bias and of flaunting the Constitution by filibustering four of the White House’s most contentious nominees - allegations the Republicans hope will stir outrage back home.

Democrats say that religion has nothing to do with it and the few nominees they are challenging have not demonstrated fitness for the appointments.

The GOP hopes that by casting Democratic opposition to the appointees as hostility to their religious anti-abortion positions will make their voters angry in a way their other arguments this year against the filibusters have not.
< http://sessions.senate.gov/headlines/pryorvote.htm

Now these truth sites are taken down as fast as they are put up.
But try a search for "GOPAC Memo on Language"
to find the Newtspeak words to be slung (see mudslinging) at opponents.

--Energize the base:
May be as simple as the NRA lying in 1992, by telling all NRA members "Clinton will take away your guns."
same lie in 2000, with Gore substituted for Clinton.
This gets most of us "gun-huggers stirred up, active and contributing to the party that tells them the lie they want to hear.
(Doesn't work with us who remember Reagan's shotgun ban and Bush the 1st's Assault weapons Ban)

--Energize the base:
Anti-abortion extremists get told candidate "X" is "for abortion on demand" instead of "is pro-choice"...
this gets those who seek to impose their religion on all others stirred up, active and contributing to any candidate who tells them the lie they want to hear.
EG last five Republican Platforms called for the "Right to Life Amendment", but the Party never even attempted to introduce it.
(tell them the lie they want to hear)

--Energize the base:
Extreme Court (majority Republican) chooses to rule that anti sodomy law are unconstitutional.
This gets homophobes stirred up, active & contributing to any avowedly homophobe candidate.

energize the base.
If they aren't scared into active campaigning and contributing, all could be lost.
Republicans typically outspend Democrats between three to one and five to one.

People who are scared of losing control contribute both time and money.

energize the base.
Like taking a stick (rightwing Federal Judges) and whacking a hornets' nest.

The effect is angry motivated swarms seeking an enemy to attack.

A brilliant RNC feeds them both the provocation and the enemy.

Watch the Movie "Wag the Dog" to fully understand neo-con productions.