Sad State Of Affairs Out West

[ANIMAL]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95165,00.html

[bluesoftail]

If my daughter's school pulled the Pledge, I'd pull her from that school. The ACLU, and jerks like them, are going to keep it up until the flag represents nothing more than a rag on the end of a pole, and patriotism is non-existent.

It is very sad.

[Maranatha]

Soon they'll want to take all the crosses down from the graves at Arlington

[Ken P]

heard on hannity radio show that they are threatening to throw a alabama judge in jail cuz he refuses to remove a 5300 lb granite block with the 10 commandments on it from in front of a courthouse

[Dan]

I'm not 100% sure, but aren't the 10 Commandments at SCOTUS as well? I know something (gasp!) Judeo-Christian oriented is.

It's pathetic. The first Amendment was not designed to CENSOR religion. It was there to keep govt frankly from putting people like Judge Moore in jail.

[ANIMAL]

This is about Judge Moore. it was e-mailed to me on the 14th

LISTEN TO RALLY FOR JUDGE MOORE LIVE ON AMERICAN FAMILY RADIO***
Dear Craig,

A federal judge has ordered Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy
Moore to remove the Ten Commandments monument located in the state's
judicial building.

Judge Moore said Thursday he will take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court,
and try to force the federal judge to stop interfering in what he says is a
right established by Alabama's constitution.

You are probably aware of the rally to be held this Saturday in Montgomery,
Alabama in support of Judge Moore. If you are unable to attend, you can
listen to the rally live via the Internet on American Family Radio (AFR).

Go to http://www.afr.net/newafr/listen_live.asp and click on any one
of the three audio stream links. (All formats will carry the rally.)

AFR's coverage of the event begins at 9:30 a.m. central.

Sign a petition in support of Judge Moore:
http://www.afapetitions.com/SignPetition.asp?id=1050

Learn more about this critical issue at http://www.stopliberaljudges.com

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Chairman
American Family Association

PS: American Family Radio is the broadcast division of AFA.

[goldwing2000]

Soon they'll want to take all the crosses down from the graves at Arlington

Good God, man! Don't give them any ideas!! :shock:

[mohavesam]

America is not about a banner, or a pledge. The nation is not made up of colored cloth, or marble buildings, or even practiced phrases said by juveniles in government schools.

Sadly, there are many who think that way. Maybe those folks just never got past the way of thinking that if one says something enough, or salutes something enough, it makes it truer, or makes us a better place? It doesn't.

I believe those people will always push to pass more and more laws, then complain when their children are punished for violating those laws.
-------------
There can be no freedom where good people are forced to recite a pledge, or forced to salute a colored cloth.

[Jim Simmons]

Mr. Justice Moore is the kind of Judge we all want to see on the bench. He is so confident of his own values and beliefs that he will ignore any other consideratings -- including the law -- to abide by them. We should applaud his convictions.

Sound familiar?

Similar words were once spoken about some guys named Warren, Douglas, Brennan and Marshall.

If he allows his personal beliefs to subordinate his oath to law, then he has no business wearing the robe, no matter how much we applaud those beliefs.

[BigDaddy40]

Which law is Moore in violation of?


Just another example of the feds meddling in states rights

[Red Sector A]

The ACLU pisses me off! :poed: Sorry!

They are just a bunch of 'ambulance chasers' who go after what ever 'cause' seems to get them the most media coverage. They constantly want to pull things, like the 10 commandments, or the pledge of Allegience, out of places because it isnt fair to some group or another. Someone's feelings are hurt so the ACLU has to step in and protect these peoples' rights. But what about the rights of those that dont want the item removed, or people that want the pledge to stay in schools? They dont care about them. Dont they realise that when you change something like this you infringe with the rights of someone else? They just dont care!!!

Why dont they get off their asses and do something about gun rights? Our rights are being 'infringed' upon everyday.. we lose more and more each day.. but oh that would be bad press for them if they got with gun owners and tried to help them. Can't have that can they?

Ok rant off... I must get some medicine that controls my desire to voice my thoughts! :wink:

[Jim Simmons]

Which law is Moore in violation of?


Just another example of the feds meddling in states rights

Since he's acting in his official capacity as the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and 42 United States Code section 1983.

And no, the feds are not "meddling in states rights," they are protecting the people of the State of Alabama from an attempt by an Alabama state official to enforce a specific religious orthodoxy. That is prohibited by the Establishment Clause, and Mr. Moore (as of Friday, he's suspended; and has for some time been unworthy of the title "Justice") full well knows this.

Suppose, instead of the Ten Commandments, Mr. Moore had installed a similar rock, inscribed with a passage from the Koran? Or the Book of Mormon? Or the Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism's holy text)? Or the Tao de Shing?

Mr. Moore is up to something. Perhaps he's planning on running for Alabama Governor. There's a scary thought.

[BigDaddy40]

I don't see how a statue can be described as "forcing" anything on anyone. It's funny how the Feds howl about the statue and the ten commandments are inscribed at the Supreme Court LOL. Same argument with our money.

I personally think that Moore is setting the stage for himself and has a motive. From what I've heard, the people in Alabama support Moore.


Like I mentioned above, most of our government buildings have some sort of Christian belief carved in them. What pi$$es me off more than anything is he used tax payer funds to buy the thing.

[Jim Simmons]

BD wrote:

What pi$$es me off more than anything is he used tax payer funds to buy the thing.

Actually, to be fair to Mr. Moore, the rock and the costs of its installation were donated by the ministry that's funding his shenanagians.

It's unclear whether the rock now belongs to the ministry, or Mr. Moore himself, or whether it's now the property of the State of Alabama.

Interesting question: I wonder if I went in with a chisel and hammer and started tearing it apart, who would make the criminal complaint?

[BigDaddy40]

Really? I didn't know that. I thought I read somewhere that the taxpayers paid for it.

[goldwing2000]

For anyone who would like to know Judge Moore's reason's for disobeying an unlawful order, read here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110003926

That's right from the horse's mouth.

[AimHigh]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I read the First Amendment as it is written, and am not influenced as to its meaning as some that have been brainwashed by the media and leftist organizations.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ( where has Congress established a religion?) or prohibit the free excercise thereof. As a matter of fact, prohibiting the free exercise of religion is in the same sentence as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Now, the press can say anything it wants, but anyone of FAITH has to shut up, according to those who hate God.

Now, they even have the thought patrol out to try to enforce what some people think.

I think some have listened to the propaganda of the same people who are leading many to believe that the 2nd amendment is not for the people, just for state militias (military). Come on people.

[Jim Simmons]

AimHigh:

You're forgetting respecting an establishment of religion.

If the words were "establishing a state religion" or "establishing an orthodoxy of religion to be enforced by the state" you'd have a strong argument that unless the state is "establishing" a state religion, it's not violating the Amendment.

But that's not what it says. "Respecting" an establishment, means anything that tends toward state endorsement of a given faith, dogma or doctrine. And Mr. Moore is acting as an agent of the State and placed the rock in a state government building. That's why it's unconstitutional.

If Mr. Moore wants the rock in him front yard, and the city tried to remove it, you'd be exactly right that the state was preventing his free exercise of his faith, and the ACLU would be out there, on his side. But the religion clause of the First Amendment has two equal and opposite parts.

And we MUST respect both parts of the religion clause of the First Amendment, as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights, if the rest of the bill of rights (such as that pesky, annoying Second Amendment) is to apply to everyone, as well.

[AimHigh]

Yes, Mr. Simmons, but it also states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Clearly, here, Congress is NOT establishing any religion.

Last night, I listened to the judge's attorney on the cable news and he is using the same reasoning as I have stated here.

Additionally, putting up a statue is not establishing a religion, in my humble opinion. Although, that is beside the point.

God bless.

[Jim Simmons]

Yes, Mr. Simmons, but it also states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Clearly, here, Congress is NOT establishing any religion.

The first clause of the 14th Amendment makes the fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. (I believe it means the entire Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court hasn't quite gone that far.) And it applies not just to State legislators, but other State actors who attempt to impose or advocate a religious orthodoxy using their power as state actors.

Last night, I listened to the judge's attorney on the cable news and he is using the same reasoning as I have stated here.

Of course he is. Those are the arguments I'd be using if I were representing Mr. Moore. But they are arguments that have failed for over 40 years, in the Supreme Court and in inferior courts. Mr. Moore knows this, and he knows his will lose.

Additionally, putting up a statue is not establishing a religion, in my humble opinion. Although, that is beside the point.

No, it is not; but is is "respecting" an establishment of religion. Mr. Moore's rock advocates adherence to a specific set of religious prescriptions: The Ten Commandments. At his home, the ACLU would defend his right to have it. At his church, the ACLU would defend his right to have it. It is a very powerful representation of the depths of Mr. Moore's faith.

But it has no place in a government building.

God bless.

And also to you.

[AimHigh]

I am taking the 1st amendment in its pure form. Parallel the 1st with the 2nd amendment. On this site and every other pro-gun site, the 2nd amendment is interpreted in its pure form. We are not relating it to anything else, with the exception of state's constititions, which appear to add to the validity of the Amendment itself.

There is nothing additional in the 1st Amendment that states we should view in an overall context in the entire Bill of Rights. That appears to be the work of savvy leftist lawyers (no disrepect) throughout the last 40 years, as you have stated.

Furthermore, this is not about removing a statue. This is about the diminishing rights of people who are people of faith. Go back in time 250 years and probably every founder and writer would be outlawed, had they written it and other documents today. Surely, you must acknowledge that the founders were people of faith and expressed such in many of their writings. It is part of the heritage and history of the United States. Those were the mores (pronounced morays) of the day. Today there are different norms. There is a huge push for pro-gay and bigger push against Christianity. The world is getting more wicked. Is there doubt?

Here is an article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34270) which has some good points about this very topic.

I especially like this one:

Someone who simply reads the text of the Constitution of the United States would be thoroughly surprised to learn that a federal judge claimed the right to act in this manner.

The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.

[Jim Simmons]

I am taking the 1st amendment in its pure form. Parallel the 1st with the 2nd amendment. On this site and every other pro-gun site, the 2nd amendment is interpreted in its pure form. We are not relating it to anything else, with the exception of state's constititions, which appear to add to the validity of the Amendment itself.

There is nothing additional in the 1st Amendment that states we should view in an overall context in the entire Bill of Rights. That appears to be the work of savvy leftist lawyers (no disrepect) throughout the last 40 years, as you have stated.

Actually, it's the work of the 14th Amendment. And we have to give the 14th Amendment the same respect we give the First, the Second, and the Twenty Third. The Fourteenth Amendment makes clear that substantive rights found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights cannot be restricted by the States. Gun rights activists believe that, too: you can't have a Second Amendment, then have states ignoring it, even though some of them try to.

Furthermore, this is not about removing a statue. This is about the diminishing rights of people who are people of faith. Go back in time 250 years and probably every founder and writer would be outlawed, had they written it and other documents today. Surely, you must acknowledge that the founders were people of faith and expressed such in many of their writings. It is part of the heritage and history of the United States. Those were the mores (pronounced morays) of the day. Today there are different norms.

I bolded the section where I think you are exactly RIGHT. Different mores, but the same constitution, the same Bill of Rights. It never occurred to them that black persons would have the right to vote; or women, for that matter. But the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights remain viable, and even more important, when, today, government would control so many aspects of our lives. Do we really want government officials telling us we MUST respect the Ten Commandments as we do the law of the State?

Where I respectfully disagree with you is with your proposition that this is about diminishing the rights of people of faith. If by that, you mean diminishing their rights to impose their beliefs on the rest of society, then yes, I would have to agree with you. But people of faith still have the right to practice their faith, and to spread it amongst the people. But not to use instruments of government to do so.

Here is an article which has some good points about this very topic.

I especially like this one:

Someone who simply reads the text of the Constitution of the United States would be thoroughly surprised to learn that a federal judge claimed the right to act in this manner.

The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government; including the courts; to act in this area.

The quoted passage is only true if we reject the notion that courts must enforce the Constitution when other branches of government violate them. Here, the Courts are prohibiting the judge from violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the people to be free from government advocacy of religion and faith. And that's as it should be.[/quote]

[BigDaddy40]

Someone who simply reads the text of the Constitution of the United States would be thoroughly surprised to learn that a federal judge claimed the right to act in this manner. The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.

Moreover, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution plainly states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, having been explicitly withheld from the United States, is reserved to the states or to the people.

Taken together, therefore, the First and 10th Amendments reserve the power to address issues of religious establishment to the different states and their people.

An erroneous premise

Now, Judge Thompson – like many federal judges and justices before him – claims the unlimited prerogative of dictating to the states what they may or may not do with respect to matters of religious expression. Applying this supposed prerogative, he has declared the erection of the Ten Commandments monument by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Alabama to be an unlawful establishment of religion.

This he has done despite the clear impossibility of any basis for his action in federal law or statute. He relies on the erroneous doctrine, repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the First Amendment forbids an establishment of religion, and that the 14th Amendment applies this prohibition to the states. Based on this assertion, he and other federal judges and justices now claim an unlimited right to dictate to the states in these matters.

We have already seen that the actual language of the Constitution does not forbid an establishment of religion. Rather, it forbids Congress to legislate on the subject at all, reserving it entirely to the states. No language in the 14th Amendment deals with this power of government.

Portions of that amendment do indeed restrict the legislative powers of the states, but they refer only to actions that affect the privileges, immunities, legal rights and equal legal status of individual citizens and persons. The first clause of the First Amendment in no way deals with persons, however, but rather – in concert with the 10th Amendment – secures the right of the states and the people to be free from the dictates of federal law respecting an establishment of religion.








The establishment clause of the First Amendment secures a right of the people. Until now, though, many have treated the first two clauses of the amendment as if they are one ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."). This practice ignores both the linguistic and the logical contrast between the two clauses. Where the first clause deals with a right of the people (that is, a power of government reserved to the states and to the people), the second clause deals with an action or set of actions (the free exercise of religion) that cannot be free unless they originate in individual choice. The first clause forbids Congress to address a subject at all. The second allows for federal action, but restricts the character of such action.

By virtue of the first clause, the states and the people as such are protected from federal domination; by the second, individuals are protected from coercion in their religious conduct. The first clause allows the states and the people as such to follow their will in matters of religion; the second guarantees the same liberty to individuals and the corporate persons they voluntarily compose. The first has as its object matters that are decided by the will of the people (i.e., by the will of the constitutionally determined majority in the different states). The second involves matters decided by the will of each individual.

[Jim Simmons]

Someone who simply reads the text of the Constitution of the United States would be thoroughly surprised to learn that a federal judge claimed the right to act in this manner. The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.

Moreover, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution plainly states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, having been explicitly withheld from the United States, is reserved to the states or to the people.

Taken together, therefore, the First and 10th Amendments reserve the power to address issues of religious establishment to the different states and their people.

Mr. Keyes's column is well thought-out and quite persuasive. Until one realizes that he, too, didn't consider the 14th Amendment. It, along with the 13th and the 15th Amendment (the "Civil War" amendments) totally re-structured the balance of power between the Federal Government and the State governments. Some people say wrongly, others say it was necessary. But it was, and it is. And the balance permits the Federal Courts to prohibit state officials from violating Federal rights of the People.

An erroneous premise

Now, Judge Thompson – like many federal judges and justices before him – claims the unlimited prerogative of dictating to the states what they may or may not do with respect to matters of religious expression. Applying this supposed prerogative, he has declared the erection of the Ten Commandments monument by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Alabama to be an unlawful establishment of religion.

This he has done despite the clear impossibility of any basis for his action in federal law or statute. He relies on the erroneous doctrine, repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the First Amendment forbids an establishment of religion, and that the 14th Amendment applies this prohibition to the states. Based on this assertion, he and other federal judges and justices now claim an unlimited right to dictate to the states in these matters.

We have already seen that the actual language of the Constitution does not forbid an establishment of religion. Rather, it forbids Congress to legislate on the subject at all, reserving it entirely to the states. No language in the 14th Amendment deals with this power of government.

Portions of that amendment do indeed restrict the legislative powers of the states, but they refer only to actions that affect the privileges, immunities, legal rights and equal legal status of individual citizens and persons. The first clause of the First Amendment in no way deals with persons, however, but rather – in concert with the 10th Amendment – secures the right of the states and the people to be free from the dictates of federal law respecting an establishment of religion.








The establishment clause of the First Amendment secures a right of the people. Until now, though, many have treated the first two clauses of the amendment as if they are one ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."). This practice ignores both the linguistic and the logical contrast between the two clauses. Where the first clause deals with a right of the people (that is, a power of government reserved to the states and to the people), the second clause deals with an action or set of actions (the free exercise of religion) that cannot be free unless they originate in individual choice. The first clause forbids Congress to address a subject at all. The second allows for federal action, but restricts the character of such action.

By virtue of the first clause, the states and the people as such are protected from federal domination; by the second, individuals are protected from coercion in their religious conduct. The first clause allows the states and the people as such to follow their will in matters of religion; the second guarantees the same liberty to individuals and the corporate persons they voluntarily compose. The first has as its object matters that are decided by the will of the people (i.e., by the will of the constitutionally determined majority in the different states). The second involves matters decided by the will of each individual.

I respect Mr. Keyes, but here, I disagree with his interpretation of the 14th Amendment. As do most courts. The rock will have to go.

[BigDaddy40]

That remains to be seen