Hannity & Colmes interviewing the Alabama judge...
- Thread starter number6
- Start date
- Status
But why? Those two rarely ask reasonable questions, almost never listen to the answers, frequently interrupt, and are generally more interested in shouting at each other or whatever poor shmoe who volunteered to appear. It's not a talk show or news program--it's televised rudeness and verbal abuse.
As I said, it was an excellent interview and the judge should be applauded. And, I hope he gets to keep the monument.
I wish
The judge was aJew, Satanist or Muslim and put up a monument to one of those religions everyone applauding him doesn't like or worship. I think we would see a much different reaction.....
BrooksTexas
The judge was aJew, Satanist or Muslim and put up a monument to one of those religions everyone applauding him doesn't like or worship. I think we would see a much different reaction.....
BrooksTexas
Hmmm... judge can't have much in the way of faith if he thinks God won't be able to get by without him usurping the power of the judiciary to wave His rules under the noses of those damn dirty heathens out there.
And why is it that these folks yell about "State's Rights" the loudest for the stupidest causes? Is going after gays and keeping black kids out of pulblic schools the best "State's Rights" issues we can come up with in 50 years?
Of course, I think everyone should be excluded from public schools - by banning public education.
And why is it that these folks yell about "State's Rights" the loudest for the stupidest causes? Is going after gays and keeping black kids out of pulblic schools the best "State's Rights" issues we can come up with in 50 years?
Of course, I think everyone should be excluded from public schools - by banning public education.
Sean -
I agree 100%. Would get rid of all the stupid education court cases as a bonus
The judge is a megalomanical idiot. If he wants a statue of the ten commandments on his lawn, fine. If he wants it in his courtroom, he can lose the courtroom.
Not all of us worship Jeebus - and those of us who don't, do not like the government taking a position on the issue.
I agree 100%. Would get rid of all the stupid education court cases as a bonus
The judge is a megalomanical idiot. If he wants a statue of the ten commandments on his lawn, fine. If he wants it in his courtroom, he can lose the courtroom.
Not all of us worship Jeebus - and those of us who don't, do not like the government taking a position on the issue.
Intune
Member
If Moore (why are all the boors named that?) will not heed the decree of a fed judge why, in the name of Allah, should anyone listen to any of his? By Zeus he'd be spittin' nails and hurling contempt charges at a mere mortal who deigned to challenge his authority. Let's go back to when you had to be a certain religion to hold public office. Or when Amish folk were run outta town. Burn the witch! Bright Blessings!
Dorrin79 The ten commandments came down from Mount Sinai with Moses, long before the time of Jesus; so they are more properly considered Jewish in origin, rather than Christian -- but I am sure you knew that.
The judge is an idiot -- I agree with him in general about the principal of the thing -- states rights, the origin of our law, etc. but he is going about this all wrong.
If the superior court orders him to move the monument, move it -- the superior court judge even said he could put it in his office if he wanted. THEN take an appeal up the ladder. If you lose in the courts, make it a political/legislative issue if you feel that strongly about it. Defying the court order is the wrong move -- it puts you in the wrong in the minds of many who might otherwise support you.
By the way -- my general standard about laws, court orders, etc., is that they should only be used when it is fairly clear that someone is being damaged. In other words, don't try to tell me that I MUST do something, or MUST NOT do something, if you cannot show that my actions or lack thereof do someone, somewhere, some actual damage or clear danger of causing damage. Has anyone been able to clearly articulate what damage someone is suffering from having this monument in the lobby?
After all, the ten commandments are engraved on the wall behind the Chief Justice of the United States -- what damage has that done to anyone?
The judge is an idiot -- I agree with him in general about the principal of the thing -- states rights, the origin of our law, etc. but he is going about this all wrong.
If the superior court orders him to move the monument, move it -- the superior court judge even said he could put it in his office if he wanted. THEN take an appeal up the ladder. If you lose in the courts, make it a political/legislative issue if you feel that strongly about it. Defying the court order is the wrong move -- it puts you in the wrong in the minds of many who might otherwise support you.
By the way -- my general standard about laws, court orders, etc., is that they should only be used when it is fairly clear that someone is being damaged. In other words, don't try to tell me that I MUST do something, or MUST NOT do something, if you cannot show that my actions or lack thereof do someone, somewhere, some actual damage or clear danger of causing damage. Has anyone been able to clearly articulate what damage someone is suffering from having this monument in the lobby?
After all, the ten commandments are engraved on the wall behind the Chief Justice of the United States -- what damage has that done to anyone?
Egg -
my first response on things like this is to say "no harm, no foul" Religion only really irritates me when people try to use it as a justification for public policy.
I don't particularly care about 'under God" in the Pledge, or a judge putting the 10 Commandments on his wall...
But if somebody does complain about it, they are in the right, according to the Constitution.
And the Christian Coalition types coming out of the woodwork really bring out the worst (or, at least, the meanest) in me.
my first response on things like this is to say "no harm, no foul" Religion only really irritates me when people try to use it as a justification for public policy.
I don't particularly care about 'under God" in the Pledge, or a judge putting the 10 Commandments on his wall...
But if somebody does complain about it, they are in the right, according to the Constitution.
And the Christian Coalition types coming out of the woodwork really bring out the worst (or, at least, the meanest) in me.
ojibweindian
Member
Quite a few people here in N Alabama support him, if I've correctly heard thecomments from listeners of a local radio station, WVNN.
Part of this is about God, another part is that the feds should stay the hell out of where they're not wanted.
We'll see how it plays out.
Part of this is about God, another part is that the feds should stay the hell out of where they're not wanted.
We'll see how it plays out.
Dorrin79
This is where I might differ with you -- IMHO this is not correct. I think that you would be correct if you said that they are "in the right based upon the "strict-separation" doctrine that our courts are using", but I don't see this "strict-separation" in the constitution.
In the constitution, it seems to me the founders where saying simply that the federal government could not be biased for or against any one religion -- they could not "make any law" and so forth. My understanding of history was that this was to prevent a "Church of America", like the "Church of England".
So, while this whole thing is right down the line with the "strict-separation" arguments from our courts, I tend to think this is a extremist position not really supported by a fair reading of the constitution. I don't see any constitutional basis for the attempts that we see to eliminate any mention of religion from the public square (which is what seems to me to be the ultimate goal -- surely this hunk of rock in the court house is just a symbol, right?).
The only reason that this kind of thing gets my interest is because of the possible implications. If, as the founders stated, our rights are inherent from our creator, then no human agency, such as government, can take them away from us. On the other hand, if groups such as the ACLU and like minded individuals succeed in removing or diluting this concept, where do rights come from? The government? The tooth fairy?
If you get to that point, would it not be logical to then re-define human rights to meet the needs of a socialist state? And then what do you do?
So in this sense, I guess I would use religion to help justify public policy.
PS -- the Christian Coalition types get to me too -- I share their faith, but not their arrogance!
This is where I might differ with you -- IMHO this is not correct. I think that you would be correct if you said that they are "in the right based upon the "strict-separation" doctrine that our courts are using", but I don't see this "strict-separation" in the constitution.
In the constitution, it seems to me the founders where saying simply that the federal government could not be biased for or against any one religion -- they could not "make any law" and so forth. My understanding of history was that this was to prevent a "Church of America", like the "Church of England".
So, while this whole thing is right down the line with the "strict-separation" arguments from our courts, I tend to think this is a extremist position not really supported by a fair reading of the constitution. I don't see any constitutional basis for the attempts that we see to eliminate any mention of religion from the public square (which is what seems to me to be the ultimate goal -- surely this hunk of rock in the court house is just a symbol, right?).
The only reason that this kind of thing gets my interest is because of the possible implications. If, as the founders stated, our rights are inherent from our creator, then no human agency, such as government, can take them away from us. On the other hand, if groups such as the ACLU and like minded individuals succeed in removing or diluting this concept, where do rights come from? The government? The tooth fairy?
If you get to that point, would it not be logical to then re-define human rights to meet the needs of a socialist state? And then what do you do?
So in this sense, I guess I would use religion to help justify public policy.
PS -- the Christian Coalition types get to me too -- I share their faith, but not their arrogance!
Hmmmm
"In the constitution, it seems to me the founders where saying simply that the federal government could not be biased for or against any one religion"
So what is putting The Christian Comandments in a courthouse doing?
"In the constitution, it seems to me the founders where saying simply that the federal government could not be biased for or against any one religion"
So what is putting The Christian Comandments in a courthouse doing?
Sounds like the local heathens need to donate a marble statue of the Lady and the Green Man - antlers and all - perched on a marble pedestal inscribed with the Rede and demand that their depiction be given equal time and space with the Christian one.
Then they need to hire a lawyer with a decent dorsal fin to remind the judge that it is not 'his' courthouse. That courthouse belongs to the people of the district, not the judge. He just gets to lease it from them for a while.
He seems to have forgotten this little detail.
LawDog
Then they need to hire a lawyer with a decent dorsal fin to remind the judge that it is not 'his' courthouse. That courthouse belongs to the people of the district, not the judge. He just gets to lease it from them for a while.
He seems to have forgotten this little detail.
LawDog
a valid concern.
As an Objectivist, I believe that our rights are inherent to our natural qualities as Rational Agents.
A Creator is not a requirement for these rights to exist.
In fact, if you look at Islam, their version of the Creator doesn't believe in the rights that our Founders stated as coming from our Creator.
So, to me, basing liberty on the supposed intentions of an unknowable god-being is pretty dangerous.
Liberty, like anything else, must be predicated on that which can be perceived and understood by man.
BTW, good discussion. Long time since I talked with a believer as rationally-minded as you.
My take is states should have their say in matters when the Constitution is not threatened, but the Feds should step in when the States undermine the Constitution.
IIRC there's a bit in there about not respecting the establishment of a religion. IMO it has no place at a courthouse.
OTOH I'm waiting for Ashcroft to step in and declare SB23 unconstitutional...yeah right
IIRC there's a bit in there about not respecting the establishment of a religion. IMO it has no place at a courthouse.
OTOH I'm waiting for Ashcroft to step in and declare SB23 unconstitutional...yeah right
If my memory serves me correctly, I seem to remember the good judge is a political animal of the first order. Seems also early in his political career he figured out how to use religious controversey as a way to futher his position. Don't fail me now, Memory, but seems I remember he has pulled this stunt or one similar before.
Now while I have major misgivings about the purging of our Judeo-Christian foundation from our society, I do have a strong aversion to hucksters and assorted swindlers wandering around manipulating gullible people for their own political and financial ends. I am inherently suspicious of any politician wrapping himself around the Bible.
Maybe some of our Alabamastan THR'ers will ride by and provide further prospective.
Now while I have major misgivings about the purging of our Judeo-Christian foundation from our society, I do have a strong aversion to hucksters and assorted swindlers wandering around manipulating gullible people for their own political and financial ends. I am inherently suspicious of any politician wrapping himself around the Bible.
Maybe some of our Alabamastan THR'ers will ride by and provide further prospective.
LawDog --
OK with me -- in my opinion it would be constitutional too. I have no objection, until maybe the court yard gets too full!
Dorrin79 --
And to me, putting it on anything else is very dangerous! However, we both believe in the inherent rights of man, so I guess we can play nice together.
Skunkabilly --
Sorry, but I still don't see how carving some words in a block of stone and then displaying them in the court house is an "establishment of religion". I guess I am just dense. If you are right, then we need to get "In God we trust" off of our currency, chisel off the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court, dynamite Moses over the entrance to The Supreme court, Fire the Chaplain of the Senate and the House, etc. ad nauseum.
OK with me -- in my opinion it would be constitutional too. I have no objection, until maybe the court yard gets too full!
Dorrin79 --
And to me, putting it on anything else is very dangerous! However, we both believe in the inherent rights of man, so I guess we can play nice together.
Skunkabilly --
Sorry, but I still don't see how carving some words in a block of stone and then displaying them in the court house is an "establishment of religion". I guess I am just dense. If you are right, then we need to get "In God we trust" off of our currency, chisel off the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court, dynamite Moses over the entrance to The Supreme court, Fire the Chaplain of the Senate and the House, etc. ad nauseum.
Whatever your opinion, this whole affair qualifies as a "good scrap" and interesting entertainment.
How about "Jesus is Lord." Just words carved in a block of stone.
Burning the flag may offend me but there's no question it should be a right protected by law. Religions and countries are supposed to be made of more substantial stuff than rocks, cloth, and cheap grandstanding.
I'd pay to see that. Anybody know a judge or other official who would be willing to try this (temporarily of course)?
According to the latest poll, the good folks of Alabama are behind the Judge with 73% WANTING to keep the 10 Commandments. I guess if the same Federal Judge declared tomorrow that you do not have the right to own firearms you would give them up gladly.
I whole heartedly support the judge. Hell, the people who elected him knew his stance. He is basing his belief on the Decleration of Independence and the Constitution. What is so wrong with that?
Why aren't more of you guys pisssed off that a court is trying (and apparently succeeding) in rewrite the Constitution and make up their own laws and beliefs. To me it's an outrage. Would you guys feel the same if this same court over ruled Alabama's 2nd Amendment rights?
Why aren't more of you guys pisssed off that a court is trying (and apparently succeeding) in rewrite the Constitution and make up their own laws and beliefs. To me it's an outrage. Would you guys feel the same if this same court over ruled Alabama's 2nd Amendment rights?
Duh. I can't believe I read that. Where do you think the ten commandments came from?
http://www.jewsformorality.org/uor_judge_moore030815.htm
http://www.towardtradition.org/prold_taleoftworabbis.htm
Concerning Satanists and Muslims, how many of the founding fathers were Satanists and Muslims? (Nor have I never heard of anything in English common law pertaining to the right to drink chicken blood nor any obligation to kill pig farmers.) I read some pretty good comments about Islamic Law recently on another thread here so I won't comment further.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
