Okay, so what did Judge Roy Moore do wrong...

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
In our country, it is not pure majority rule.

Unfortunately, in our country, it is getting pretty close to pure minority rule. </font>[/QUOTE]I couldn't agree more. Our Republic requires a Christian base to keep the constitution afloat, and the Republicans, who are the only ones close to that, are weak and spineless.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by hillclimber:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Sorry to lower your self-esteem, C4K, but I have to agree with you.

Let me see - does that make twice in our history we have agreed ?

Judge Moore blew his future. I agree with him on the constitutional reasons for his decision, but a Supreme Court justice cannot have a record of ignoring the federal courts. </font>[/QUOTE]That court had absolutely no business ruling in that case. Moore knew that, the nation knew that, but the left saw political gain in destroying Moore for standing for constitutional truth.. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but it was not Moore's perogative to interpret the constitution differently than the federal court. By definition, his acts were a violation. </font>[/QUOTE]No, the feds should never have gotten the case. It was not within their juristiction. It was a state issue.

 

[hillclimber]

MP I do see the point that once the Supreme's rule, whether it is constitutional or not, it must be obeyed, but I do not agree with it. What Judge Moore did, must be done to prevent a complete runaway from the constitution, as written. The Congress has refused to reel in the Judicial branch, as is their duty, so we are left with brave citizens like Judge Moore, to fight for our nation.

 

[Pronto]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
In our country, it is not pure majority rule.

Unfortunately, in our country, it is getting pretty close to pure minority rule. </font>[/QUOTE]I couldn't agree more. Our Republic requires a Christian base to keep the constitution afloat, and the Republicans, who are the only ones close to that, are weak and spineless. </font>[/QUOTE]How does our Republic require a Christian base? What in the world are you talking about?

Judge Moore is at best a hypocrite and at worst a idiot. Either way I don't want him anywhere near a court.

That you would advocate for the silence of the minority voice is astonishing!

You folks need to stop reading David Barton!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Pronto:
That you would advocate for the silence of the minority voice is astonishing!

Actually, I would appreciate the majority getting its voice heard from time to time.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Pronto:
How does our Republic require a Christian base?

Our nation was founded on Christian principles.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Pronto:
Judge Moore is at best a hypocrite and at worst a idiot.

Judge Roy Moore is one of the greatest Americans living today.

 

[JamesBell]

Whether the federal court has jurisdiction is a triky issue to deal with. If you are a total constructionalist, then no they did not have jurisdiction. The first amendment, as written, deals only with the Congress passing a law. However, as any armchair lawyer knows, it is the decisions in cases that actually make law. For quite some time it has been the norm to bring the protections of the Bill of Rights to the state governments as well. Therefore, this is a federal issue. The question at bar was whether the monument violated the anti-establishment clause of the first amendment. In our society today, and with the legal history of our nation, this is clearly a federal issue.

Now, the question turns to whether or not the court made the proper decision. While I (as a strict, but not total, constructionalist) believe the court was dead wrong in their decision, there is a judicial history (which remember is law) that allows for the decision. Since the comment made to the Danbury Baptists about a wall of seperation has made it into our legal history it is easy to follow that this decision would be made.

More importantly, Judge Moore swore an oath to perform his duty as a judge. Part of this duty is to follow the law (as interpreted) at all times. He did not do this. From a legal view, his actions were on equal footing with a liberal judge that ignores history and written law to accomplish their political goals. Judge Moore attempted to make law from the bench. That is not acceptable.

A question for everyone that is supporting Judge Moore to be nominated to the Supreme Court. Had you ever heard of this man before the 10 Commandments issue became national news? I am quite sure that the answer is no-- at least for most posters on the board. So then, why would you be fully in support of a man that you know little about. Sure, we all want Godly men and women to be in positions of authority. However, other than this one instance most don't know where Moore stands. I would much rather President Bush select a jurist that has a proven track record in the federal courts. Roy Moore is a person I respect and admire. However, I do not believe that he belongs on the Court. He made his decision-- and stood by it. However, as a member of the judiciary, he is no longer a viable candidate. I support Emilio Garza to be nominated. Others are in favor of other solid conservative judges. In any event, selecting Moore would be almost pure warfare. I don't want to fight for the sake of fighting.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
In our country, it is not pure majority rule.

Unfortunately, in our country, it is getting pretty close to pure minority rule. </font>[/QUOTE]If it were minority rule it would be Christian rule. The numbers and percentage of Christians is steadily on the decline across the nation. In the last several years the SBC, the largest protestant denomination, has only exceeded the population growth percentage by one percent. During the time when the population grew by nine percent the SBC membership grew by 8 percent. A number of the founders of America were not Christians. Some were deists such as Jefferson. Jefferson was a liberal and didn't believe the miracles of Jesus. In the Jefferson Bible the miracles are cut out.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by Pronto:
How does our Republic require a Christian base?

It was founded as a Republic of laws based on Biblical principals. If those principals were to be subverted, you could not hold the Republic together. I couldn't find the origin and can't site the theme very well, but it had to do with the Laws of God being unchangable and man being able to adhere to them. As we see today man has abandoned those biblical tenets, and we are turning the constitution into whatever the supreme's think we want it to be.

 

[OCC]

So wouldn't it be Republicans AND Democrats who caused the problems in your country? Nobody can tell me that in the last fifty years whenever you had a Republican President that you were so spiritual as a country, etc.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by JamesBell:

More importantly, Judge Moore swore an oath to perform his duty as a judge. Part of this duty is to follow the law (as interpreted) at all times. He did not do this. From a legal view, his actions were on equal footing with a liberal judge that ignores history and written law to accomplish their political goals. Judge Moore attempted to make law from the bench. That is not acceptable.

A friend of mine from a country in Europe who saw liberalism creep in told me that liberals and fundamentalists lie in the same bed just on opposite ends. If one notices they both have much the same attitudes and practices. Just a different theology. Having been in business for many years I have watched liars on both sides and crooks on both sides. Both can be just as mean spirited. In the 1980's the SBC had to call in the police at one of the conventions in VA to calm things down. The liberals and fundamentalists were fighting.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by JamesBell:
A question for everyone that is supporting Judge Moore to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

No one seriously believes that Bush will nominate Moore. It's just that we conservatives like him a lot.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by gb93433:
If it were minority rule it would be Christian rule.

I wish we had Christian rule in this country.

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
If it were minority rule it would be Christian rule.

I wish we had Christian rule in this country. </font>[/QUOTE]So did the Roman Catholics at various times in history brother.

 

[Pronto]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pronto:
Judge Moore is at best a hypocrite and at worst a idiot.

Judge Roy Moore is one of the greatest Americans living today. </font>[/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm sorry you weren't joking, in that case

 

[The Galatian]

Civil disobedience is a valid way to express your opposition to a law you feel is wrong.

But the collary to that is you must be willing to take the consequences.

 

[mioque]

gb93433&Scott
"imagine if a Buddhist judge wanted a Buddha in the court. "
" I have to ask myself how I would like it if a Catholic donated an image of Mary that was promptly placed in the center of the Missouri Supreme Court."
"
RC's have their own version of the 10 commandments and Buddhists have a similar list of principles.
Let's not immediatly assume that judges who belong to competing religious movements will go for blunt idolatry instead of putting up a relevant set of principles.
Anyway part of the problem is the RCC has a different set of 10 commandments and so do the Jews. Any readable version of a 10 commandments will always respect 1 part of Judeo-Christianity over others.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by KenH:
If the majority of the population was Buddhist, then I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Then you wouldn't have a problem with a public display of the Koran (along with a sign that says "God's law") in a Deaborn, MI courthouse?

If the issue is that of majority, then Judge Morre was wrong. Why? Because his display was the Ten Commandments of the KJV. Most Americans use the NIV.

Our nation was founded on Christian principles.

Actually, the colonies were founded on Christian principles (to be specific, the issue of freedom and liberty in religious practices). The nation was founded based on the issue of taxation without representation.

 

[TisHerself]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pronto:
How does our Republic require a Christian base?

Our nation was founded on Christian principles. </font>[/QUOTE]No, it wasn't. It was founded on a separation of church and state rule. England was forcing their religious beliefs upon people and those who fled were in protest of that. I have some quotes by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and George Washington that would curl your hair

"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry" - Thomas Jefferson


Now you are stomping on my family's history! My 11th great-grandmother was Mary Chilton, a young girl who was said to be the first woman to set foot on ground at Plymouth Rock. I know whereof I speak on this one as surely as I know my own name.