I was flipping through the channels this morning, and happened to catch Moore on the shudder 700 Club.
He was going on and on about how it was that he was fired because he acknowledged God and how “that isn’t allowed.”
No, you moron, I wanted to scream, it’s because you can’t put crap on other people’s property and force them to endorse your religion!
Judge Moore and his ilk plant is to first claim to represent “Christian” values. Then, once the Religious Reich gets enough power, they’ll start splitting hairs as to what qualifies as “Christian”. Heathens have it easy when compared to the treatments meted out to heretics. I already know full well where the Religious Reich will classify me, an Orthodox Christian. They get in charge, and I’ll be among the first roundups for the “Witnessing Camps”.
That’s precisely what he thinks “acknowledging God” is, Guin.
Freedom of religion obviously places certain restrictions on the nature of religious belief. A religion which requires its adherents to enforce itself upon everyone by whatever means necessary cannot be tolerated in the same way others can. That is essentially what some branches of Christianity have mutated into: a pure memetic vector, unconcerned with the well-being of its hosts or the environment in which they exist.
Look you fuc…
::looking up to see that this is Great Debates::
Well, Milum ole’ chap, it was all explained to you, YES YOU PERSONALLY, in this thread. In that thread you were going to present a cogent response to the 11th Circuit’s ruling, and instead backed out because you knew you couldn’t and would rather wallow in your self-congratulatory ignorance.
And now you have the audicity to come into this thread and raise the same issue you ducked not 3 months ago? Pathetic.
And, by the way, regardless of your thoughts on the Court’s opinion, they ruled the way they did, and Moore defied their ruling, and violated the Judicial Canon of Ethics. That’s why he was removed. Nes pas?
All they need to know is that I shall tell the truth on the stand. Actually, that’s all they need to know about any witness. Come to think of it, don’t the judges give some kind of form advisory to the jury in this situation?
Cheatem, Cheatem, Cheatem, you disappoint me.
Now, here, in front of God Allmighty and the highest and the lowest members of this board pray tell how you and your high fussy legal brethen in lofty pronouncements extrapolated from this basic simple english declaration to the removal of Roy’s nicely polished granite stone.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Ok Cheatem, “Who” shall make no law? Yes, Cheatem, you are right- “Congress”. Now, Cheatem, is “Congress” a state? Right again Cheatem, of course Congress is not a state. Perhaps Cheatem, those who drafted the Bill of Rights accidently left the part about the states out.
And I absolutely refused to believe that you referred to the ramblings of Judge Myron Thompson and the quick side-stepts of the Supreme Court as examples of astute interpertation of this innocent clause.
In his opinion effecting the removal of the rock, federal Judge Myron Thompson said pointedly that he had no idea what the Constitution meant by “religion”. But no matter, he ruled that the rock established a “religion” anyway. He said that the display of Roy’s huge rock was put in a public place where it could potentially offend those who were to be offended.
Maybe Dewey, you are just too busy riding the bull to see the semantical bullshit. Best of luck with your career.
Hamlet: Milum ridiculously places his “argument” in the thread he abandoned as an appeal to a higher court than the Supreme Court of the United States. He, again ridiculously, asserts that court is the mass of people. What he’s forgetting, and intentionally no doubt because it conflicts with the BS he’s tossing around as though it’s relevant or even accurate, is that our government is set up the way it is to prevent the minority from being tyranized by the majority. Thus the federal supreme court gets to make decisions that are binding on ALL courts in the country.
BTW, Milum, care to expound on at least one other amendment to the federal constituton? Since you’re so perfectly knowledgeable about the document, you should know which one extends the bit you quoted to the state governments also.
I hope that this is the next encroachment of church upon state to get the axe. The problem about any advisory is that those people who are likely to be colored by your refusal to swear on a bible aren’t going to be swayed by a plea from the judge to not read anything into it.
That is not what you wrote, and it is not what I responded to.
You wrote, in the post to which I was responding: “And no one I know (including the US Supreme Court) contends that the Establishment Clause is the base clause for removing the monument.” (Emphasis added)
Your statement was plainly false. The Supreme Court has contended that the Establishment Clause demands the removal of religious monuments of the type put up by Moore. It has so held in numerous cases, including those cited in the 11th Circuit’s opinion.
Now you’re switching gears: you’re saying that the Supreme Court has been consistently wrong in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause. That is, to put it mildly, an arguable point, turning entirely on how much credence you give to the theory that the 14th amendment, among other things, applies the Bill of Rights to the states.
But even if you think the Supreme Court (and thus the 11th Circuit) has gotten it all spectacularly wrong, that does not excuse Moore’s refusal to comply with an order from a federal court. A judge is obligated to comply with the decisions of higher courts, even if he disagrees with their interpretations. In refusing to do so, he violates his oath of office; removing him from office thus becomes entirely appropriate. **
Regardless of my opinion of the validity of the court’s reasoning in those cases, I recognize as a matter of stare decisis that those decisions have the force of law.
For example, I think the majority decision in the recent Lawrence v. Texas was an absurd example of judicial overreach, relying as it does on hazy notions of “substantive” due process. But I recognize that the decision has the force of law, and must be heeded. It would be wrong for another state to continue to enforce its sodomy laws in light of that decision, because to do so would make a mockery of the rule of law.**
I’ve skimmed the opinion and I can’t find what the hell you’re talking about. Please tell me which page of the opinion (linked in my earlier post) you are referring to.**
There’s certainly a lot of bullshit being thrown around, and the shovel has your name engraved on it.
from this can i accurately infer that you believe the executive and judicial branches also have the right to abridge free speech? can the president tell you that you can worship no god but him? he apparently retains the right to prohibit the free practice of relgiion in Milumworld. should we all have to profess our faith in a christian, or better yet, a hindu god before we can be found innocent in any court?
Fighting ignorance is a duty that knows no rest.
And boy, Milum’s giving us lots to fight…
I definitely agree with you on the larger points (and I think I got mired in the details more than the whole picture, my apologies).
I’d rather not hijack this thread debating whether or not laws are black and white vs. grey but would be more than amenable to engaging it in another thread. (IANAL, however, so my ignorance may have me be way off base here too)
Okay, let’s take an ultra-strict rendering: If the Congress and only the Congress is prohibited from establishing a religion, then it is legal for the President to establish a religion that requires the destruction of all Bibles and anything with Scriptural text. Likewise, he can legally make this religion 100% mandatory. That’s what Milum’s interpretation of the Constitution is.
Milum: “incorporation doctrine”
“Congress” = state gov’t now. It’s settled law going back for quite a while – Civil War. I know, we want a rematch! Now we have the factories. MUHA… Cough.
You are wrong. Judge Moore’s counsel admitted in oral arguments that their interpretation could render courthouses looking like medieval cathedrals. Check that. That would be lucky. Those are fun to visit and have cool gargoyles. What we would get would be more like the “Las Vegas Christmas” look I have a feeling.
Seems to be that of Bush and Ashcroft, as well (although they are proceeding circumspectly at the moment).
Same here. All the jury needs to know, in reality, is that I’m there to answer questions and that I am required by law to answer them truthfully.
Well, I could see a jerkish judge like Moore saying to the jury, “That mofo didn’t swear on the Bible, the heathen.” However, the advisory I’m recalling is one where the judge merely informs the jury that the witness is already “sworn.”
So in cases where a defendant refuses to swear on a bible, arrangments are made ahead of time so that the jury doesn’t have to hear the refusal?
Sure thing** Monty**, but hey, I think that a connection between the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment is the stuff of clouds. So go ahead, Good Buddy, show me a linkage . Me, being from Alabama, miss the association.
Amendment XlV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It’s right there, Milum. The states are prohibited from abridging anyone’s liberty. Freedom of religion & even freedom from religion are part of our liberties in this country.
And you are certainly not counted among my buddies, so I’ll thank you to not cast such an aspersion on me.