According to http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=1410654&nav=8fapHZbc , Judge Ray Moore has some support in forcing myths down our throat in the form of the Ten Commandments (available at sellers of fiction near you) in a courtroom. Too bad saner members of the judicial system are going to smack him down with the full weight of the law.

They have no place inside a building of law. They are sacred laws to those who follow it, and that's not all of us. The US seems to becoming more and more fundamentalist in her Christian beliefs every year. Well not all of Anerica mostly the baptist south. I assume most Americans know that they live in a secular democracy not some pseudo-theocratic state. If you look at the rest of the developed world once the most progressive nation the US is falling behind the rest in social development. :(

Once again, I am so glad I do not live in the south.

It is too bad that they no longer allow political/religious discussions at the other forum I frequent. There is one southern bozo Christian who would be rabidly defending Judge Roy Moore. He was so easy to anger, pushing his buttons was irresistable.

Maybe I can get him to come here, he'd be buddies with Okinrus.

I've heard Moore speak on the radio, he is one raving nutjob.

Originally posted by nico
The US seems to becoming more and more fundamentalist in her Christian beliefs every year.

Christian or Jewish.

I think the USA needs to split up so the religious fanatics have someplace to go.

Besides the ovens, I mean.

Originally posted by Repo Man
I've heard Moore speak on the radio, he is one raving nutjob.

Yeah a nutjob, not like Lani Guinier that Clinton tried to appoint to the US Supreme Court. She thought that white votes should count for less than minority votes.

Anyway, I appreciate Moore sticking by his guns, but we have to have a rule of law or else all is chaos. As mush as I agree with him in principle, in reality he needs to follow the courts, and if the US Sup. Ct. does not uphold it, then that is that.

We aren't talking about Lani Guinier, or Clinton. I'm curious to know why you think they are relevant to a raving nutjob judge in Alabama?

But since you brought her up, lets take a quick look at Lani Gunier.

She was Bill clinton's appointee for the position of assistant attorney general for civil rights, not a position on any court.

One of the few opinions frequently attributed to Guinier that she actually held was her support for "proportional representation" -- a system in which seats in government are divided by the percentage of the vote each party or slate receives. (If 40 percent of the voters back a party, that party would get roughly 40 percent of the seats -- as opposed to a "winner-take-all" system, in which 51 percent of the voters can get 100 percent of the seats.) But her position was twisted by commentators like the Washington Post's Lally Weymouth (5/25/93) into a vision of "a society in which a minority can impose its will on the majority."

How could Guinier's positions be distorted so thoroughly? Part of the problem was simple laziness: Rather than doing research into Guinier's record, many journalists preferred to simply repeat the charges of ideologically motivated opponents. When the New York Times finally devoted an article to her views, rather than to the political firestorm that raged around them -- on June 4, after the nomination had already been killed -- there still was not a single quote from any of her writings. "Almost everyone is relying on reconstructions by journalists and partisans, injecting further distortions into the process," reporter David Margolick wrote -- "everyone" including himself, he admitted in an interview with Extra!.

More, http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/guinier-queen.html

Roy Moore is a judge. As such, his job is to enforce the law. His job isn't to try to cram Christianity down the throats of everyone who enters the courthouse.

If people want god talk, they can go to a church. That is what they are for.

America consists of Christians, Buddhists, Moslems, Wiccans, atheists, agnostics, Satan worshippers, Hindus, and many other beliefs.
The only fair position on religion in government is complete neutrality.
After all, there is an equal amount of evidence in support of all of these beliefs

Originally posted by Christian Sodomy
Christian or Jewish.

I think the USA needs to split up so the religious fanatics have someplace to go.

Besides the ovens, I mean.

Hey Sodomy, go fuck yourself:cool:

Fitting for such a pest to commit buggery upon himself...

Originally posted by Christian Sodomy
Christian or Jewish.

I think the USA needs to split up so the religious fanatics have someplace to go.

Besides the ovens, I mean.

ovens ? those things are sooo last century. Now a tightly packed wooden church building... that has potential ! :cool:

In the sprit of church-state seperation:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. - Mr Thomas Jefferson
---
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. - Mr Thomas Paine
---
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. - Mr John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11
---
I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible). - Mr Thomas Paine
--
Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. -Mr James Madison


Yes, it seems that the American Republic was meant to be god-free. Rather, it was hijacked by homicidal bomber christians.

The US does have more than its share of fundamentalist cranks.

But the potential for the future could be even worse.

Take a look, http://www.bushflash.com/faith.html .

christian sodomy:
your gay ass is all talk and no action.
let's see you DO something about this horrible desease called Kike'ism :rolleyes:

How is the presence of the 10 Commandments an endorsement of religion? It essentially formed the basis of many current laws. Regardless of religious or non-religious persuasion, nine of the ten are pretty much common sense, sound advice, or are the law now. Would it make a difference if it was called 10 Pretty Good Ideas?

I do not believe in governmental endorsement of a religion, that is a person's inherent right to choose. But this is just making a mountain out of a mole hill.

But this is just making a mountain out of a mole hill.
I don't agree.:)
It demonstrates the sort of Nutcase who gets to administer justice in the USA.
Could a gay muslim (there must be one or two that have avoided a stoning;) ) have any real chance of gaining a fair hearing if he/she found themselves up in front of this dude?

Dee Cee

truth
How is the presence of the 10 Commandments an endorsement of religion? It essentially formed the basis of many current laws. Regardless of religious or non-religious persuasion, nine of the ten are pretty much common sense, sound advice, or are the law now. Would it make a difference if it was called 10 Pretty Good Ideas?

I do not believe in governmental endorsement of a religion, that is a person's inherent right to choose. But this is just making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Who in this world thinks the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with religion? If the ten commandments then we need a 10-ton rock of Buddhist 4 Noble truths & anothe for the Eightfold path.

The Hindu Vedas should fill another rock.

Or do you not understand this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

A judge who does not believe in the constitution should be removed along with his damn stone filled with dead words.

Or do you not understand, read it again.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Congress shall make no law, by virture of the Establishment Clause, neither shall the states. Tell me, what law has Judge Moore established? He can't, it's called separation of powers. Call it civil disobedience, if some can do it, why not others. Or does that only apply to some people, but not others?

So you still do not see what the 10 (plus how many ever were lost by moses) commandments have to do with christianity? And you do knowingly disregard this:
fight for the right of our state to acknowledge God as the moral foundation of our law," Moore said in a statement.

If this is not establishment of religion then what is. If this is not opening the flood gates to greater religious influence over our government then I do not know what is.

A judge has to uphold and enforce the constitution. Tell me, is he upholding it or outright defying what it says and defying an direct order from a federal court.

You speak of double standards, but carefully avoided my question of christian "god" in politics. Why not also hindu gods, muslim god & buddhist god (even though there is none). Or does that only apply to some people, but not others?

Kajolishot, I said this in one of my earlier posts on this thread, that I fundamentally agree with him, he should follow that law/courts or that it is chaos.

The judge is not making a law here, he is defying the ruling of a Federal court judge. The law so far as it has been established is by that Federal Courts ruling, which currently is the controlling law in this specific case. Additionally, he is not arguing the establishment of a religion, only that the 10 Commandments and form the moral foundation of our laws. The 10 are not peculiar to Christianity only.

He is practicing civil disobedience. My chief disagreement is that he is an officer of the court in his position as such, is the chief problem. Not the monument.

Nevermind, I don't want to get kicked out.

Originally posted by and2000x
Nevermind, I don't want to get kicked out.

Kicked out for what? Just say what you want in a reasonable manner.

Originally posted by kajolishot
Yes, it seems that the American Republic was meant to be god-free. Rather, it was hijacked by homicidal bomber christians.

Loved the quotes.

I would add though that I don't really see a problem with "god" in government. "god" isn't that big of a deal. "god" is a universal concept. It's when you start talking about "the bible" that you get in trouble. You are then sanctioning the basis for a variety of religions, that is exactly unconstitutional.

Originally posted by truth
How is the presence of the 10 Commandments an endorsement of religion?

That endorses the bible. Most western religions are based on this book. If you endorse the bible in the name of defending your right to worship, you favor a religion. As a public official, you shouldn't be allowed to do that.

You can hold whatever private opinion you'd like but if your personal conviction regarding your religious beliefs subjectively outweighs your responsibilities as a public official, you are simply unqualified to hold the office of judge.
Originally posted by truth

It essentially formed the basis of many current laws.

A case can be made in that direction and it probably has a bit of merit, but show me the law that is based on "I am the lord your god, who brought you out of hte land of egypt, out of hte house of bondage. you shall have no other gods before me" or "you shall not take the name of the lord your god in vain" and I'll show you a violation of the constitution and worse, something that's just plain stupid. Worship your own shit for all I care, but if you expect me to worship it with you.. you'll be dissappointed.
Originally posted by truth

Regardless of religious or non-religious persuasion, nine of the ten are pretty much common sense, sound advice, or are the law now. Would it make a difference if it was called 10 Pretty Good Ideas?

Bullshit. Justify "You shall not covet". Hell man, coveting is the basis for consumerism which in turn drives our economy. What about the two I mentioned above? Why the sabbath? Who cares about some graven image? Maybe 5 of the commandments are worthy, but they could be combined a bit. George Carlin did an excellent bit on this one: check it out! (http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html)
Originally posted by truth

I do not believe in governmental endorsement of a religion, that is a person's inherent right to choose. But this is just making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I don't think so. I think this judge is a fundy and as such unqualified to "judge" anyone. What a piece of shit. Makes me sick to think of it.

is that the ten commandments aren't christian in the least. For someone everyone, including christians, forget that. that was a covenant to the jewish people. not christians. they didn't exist. christ said i bring you a new covenant.

That is beside the point.

here is the problem as i see it. everyone can say seperation of church and state as much as they want, but it simply isn't true. Come on people, how does the pledge of allegience go? What does the president swear on? What have most courts used to swear in witnesses until recently? How did that little swear in cerimony go? the so help me god has been dropped recently, but it was there for a long time. What about the marines? notice their little slogan: God*Country*Corps..Semper Fi

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/priorservice/godcouncorca.html

The christian religion may not be "officially"part of the government, but it was there from the begining. I'm not saying that i advocate what the judge in bama has done, but its not a new thing. The common belief that this is a christian issue just shows the ignorance of everyone involved.

It is a Christian issue because the Christians consider it a Christian issue.

"Under god" in the pledge, "In God We Trust" on money, swearing on a bible in court; all of these need to go the way of the Dodo bird.
Either public religious displays include all religions, or none of them.

Getting rid of this monument is only a step in the right direction. And a breath of fresh air in country that seems increasingly insane to me.

Either public religious displays include all religions, or none of them.

Exactly!

I have a problem with the term "god", wes, because it immediately alienates polytheists.



All of this remindes me of whites' disobedience when the courts ordered the schools to be desegregated. Alas, round and round we go.


On the side note, does anyone see the decline of America approach? I see it more and more every day.
And it is not by muslim evildoers. It is by the one and the same "patriotic" american.

It is laughable how so many of you think having mention of religion or religious symbols in government offices is going to destroy the nation. Those religious symbols have been there for the last 227 years with no significant difference being made. Hells bells we can swear on a can of campbells soup if we want. We can build shrines to soup, worship it, decorate the cans with lights and put them on the Judge's bench, but nothing will change anything about the way the law is applied.

Praise chicken soup and pass the ammunition.

Originally posted by truth
How is the presence of the 10 Commandments an endorsement of religion? It essentially formed the basis of many current laws. Regardless of religious or non-religious persuasion, nine of the ten are pretty much common sense, sound advice, or are the law now. Would it make a difference if it was called 10 Pretty Good Ideas?You could make a semi-reasonable argument along those lines, but that isn't what Justice Moore is doing. Throughout the entire legal battle surrounding the monument, Moore has said that his purpose is to "proclaim the sovereignty of the Christian God." He isn't even pretending that there's any secular significance to the monument. Or do you not understand, read it again.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion The Supreme Court has (wisely) interpreted the establishment clause in the constitution to mean that the government cannot use its power to promote or hinder a religion in any way, not just through enacting legislation. There are all sorts of ways that the government could 'encourage' people to join some particular religion without actually making laws. Putting a monument to one a particular religion in, say, a courthouse would be a good example.

Originally posted by Mephura
I'm not saying that i advocate what the judge in bama has done, but its not a new thing
Well, that's for sure but shouln't we eventually get around to addressing it? I honestly don't care THAT much but state endorsement of a particular religion and I assume by extension) a group of religions is a constitutional violation. If the ten commandments can be shown to endorse a religion then tablets shouldn't be there.
Originally posted by Mephura
The common belief that this is a christian issue just shows the ignorance of everyone involved.
While the origin of the commandments may be of non-christian origin, they encorporated it into their belief system and promote it as their doctrine. Government adoption of that type of doctrine based on the fact that it is from a "holy text" is innappropriate. I think regardless of the ignorance as to the origins of the commandments, the objection to having them in a court house eludes to necessary adherence to them.

I suppose the question is entirely whether or not they are religious?

What is the evidence that it is?

I'd say that four of them (or so depending on the version I guess?) are based on god.

(while that alone isn't necessarily justification to reject them...)

They have been adopted by the bible (generally associated directly with christians e.g. bible thumpers) as religious doctrine.

They are promoted by religions (which makes the common experience of them as religious).

Shit man I lost my steam all of the sudden. Tooooooo tired. More later.

Originally posted by kajolishot
[b]On the side note, does anyone see the decline of America approach? I see it more and more every day.
And it is not by muslim evildoers. It is by the one and the same "patriotic" american. This sort of thing has happened every five or ten years for the past century. I'd hardly call it a sign of the united states declining. It's more a sign that Alabama is fully of crazy religious fundis. Unfortunately there isn't much that can be done in a federal system when the majority of the people in a state are crazy.

Come on wes, you can do it...
You were on a roll there. Don't stop now..

justiceusa
It is laughable how so many of you think having mention of religion or religious symbols in government offices is going to destroy the nation.

Isn't promoting one religion over another going to destroy the nation? You cannot see why that would happen? Try being the minority, especially a religious minority in a religious nation.

But, I said decline not destruction of America. A decline because now you have an official state religion EVEN THOUGH the law of the land states you shall not have one.

Make no mistake about it, this damn stupid excuse for a judge, Moore, wishes just that.

Besides if you actually read the entire thread you would not be asking such a redundent question.

Originally posted by Mephura
Come on wes, you can do it...
You were on a roll there. Don't stop now..
If you read his response to (anti)truth at the very top of this page, you will see.

The common belief that this is a christian issue just shows the ignorance of everyone involved
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7115.asp

Let us recall why America was founded...why Europeans fled Europe to come to America.

If America was founded as a religious nation, then it was doomed before it even began.

Originally posted by kajolishot


If America was founded as a religious nation, then it was doomed before it even began.

How would America be doomed if founded as a religious nation? Regardless of what the courts have interpreted, the idea about proscribing government endorsement of religion was a reaction to the Church of England as the prescribed religion under the English. The idea that God was not to be a part of this country by the Founding Fathers is not true. There are statements to the contrary. I think everyone will agree that religion can be taken to far, by any religion. Frankly, I feel that religion has been a great thing in this country, but in no way be forced on anyone. God was an integral part of the founding and building of this country.

How would America be doomed if founded as a religious nation?
Errrr 'cos God doesn't exist maybe?

Sheesh! Americans!
Dee Cee

- Reports, Staff and Wire. "Alabama chief justice suspended". MSNBC News. August 22, 2003. see - http://www.msnbc.com/news/954934.asp?0si=-

The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was suspended Friday pending an ethics investigation for his defiance of a federal judge’s order that he remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state judicial building . . . .

. . . . CHIEF JUSTICE Roy Moore’s actions next face a hearing before the state Court of the Judiciary after the Judicial Inquiry Commission found merit in a complaint by Montgomery lawyer Stephen Glassroth that Moore violated ethics rules by ignoring U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson’s order.

Moore, who was suspended with pay, had no immediate comment. He has 30 days to respond to the Court of the Judiciary, which holds trial-like proceedings and can discipline and remove judges.

Moore met with the Judicial Inquiry Commission earlier as about 100 of his supporters, several blocks away at the federal courthouse, ripped and burned a copy of Thompson’s order. Thompson threatened to impose $5,000-a-day fines against the state if Moore left the monument in the rotunda. I've probably missed a detail in here somewhere ... is the physical area under such control of Moore's court that the State Patrol cannot oversee the forcible removal of the monument?

Anyway, let's hear it for the protesters:

"What do we want?"
Supremacy!
"When do we want it?"
From here to eternity!

"All we are saying is Give Us Our Rights. All we are saying is that We Are Supreme. All we are saying is Give Us our Due. All we are saying is You All Owe Us. All we are saying is Oppress For Us. All we are saying is Screw Everyone!"

How would America be doomed if founded as a religious nation? Regardless of what the courts have interpreted, the idea about proscribing government endorsement of religion was a reaction to the Church of England as the prescribed religion under the English. The idea that God was not to be a part of this country by the Founding Fathers is not true. There are statements to the contrary. I think everyone will agree that religion can be taken to far, by any religion. Frankly, I feel that religion has been a great thing in this country, but in no way be forced on anyone. God was an integral part of the founding and building of this country.

Because, truth, I feel the 'founding fathers' would not set up a type of government that they ran away from - chiefly a christian, or vaguely a religious system.

Moreover, you see no problem with religion in state? Then do not go tits-up about muslim state fusion with religion. People that are pro state+church are hypocrites and when time comes to blame the arab world for its radicalism they blame Islam and it's fusion with the Muslim statehood.

Besides, explain to me how a state endorsed religious church would allow other rival religions to certain unalienable rights? Not to mention the justice system.

Also, our leaders invoke the term 'god' a lot. It's great for popularity polls because your numbers go up. But looking back at America with christian ideology makes me giggle. Stupid politicians.

Now that this moronic excuse of a law-enforcing judge is suspended can we expect to wake up to the news that south is again leaving the Union?

:D

Have any of you noticed his (Moore's) hair plug job on TV?
I guess his prayers to god to restore his hairline went unanswered.

Nothing fails like prayer.

Speaking of the south:
HUNTSVILLE, AL—For the 135th straight year since Gen. Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox, representatives for the South announced Monday that the region has postponed plans to rise again.

"Make no mistake, the South shall rise again," said Knox Pritchard, president of the Huntsville-based Alliance Of Confederate States. "But we're just not quite ready to do it now. Hopefully, we'll be able to rise again real soon, maybe even in 2001."

Pritchard's fellow Southerners shared his confidence.

"Yes, sir. The South will rise again, and when it does, I'll be right up front waving the Stars and Bars," said Dock Mullins of Decatur, GA. "But first, I gotta get my truck fixed and get that rusty old stove out of my yard."

"Lord willing, and the creek don't rise, we gonna rise again," said Sumter, SC, radiator technician Hap Slidell, who describes himself as "Southern by the grace of God." "I don't know exactly when we're gonna do it, but one of these days, we're gonna show them Yankees how it's done."





More;http://www.theonion.com/onion3613/south_postpones.html
http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3613/south_postpones_rising.gif
Above: Three of the estimated 45 million Southerners who have not yet gotten around to rising again.

Once again, common sense beats southern fundies. It's always nice when democracy gets something right…

Originally posted by Nasor
Once again, common sense beats southern fundies. It's always nice when democracy gets something right…

They were correct in suspending him, otherwise the rule of law fails.

BTW, the US is a Republic.

it was wrongly asserted that the 10 are the basis of law. are you not aware that a world existed long before the first biblical books were written? complex ancient societies formed on justice and reason were the inspiration for modern political theory.

"Those religious symbols have been there for the last 227 years with no significant difference being made."
indeed but ain't no one ever accused this country of being a just place. the fact that there is no change IS the problem.

That kind of goes along with the whole "with liberty and justice for all"
just..justice...get it?

there is a lively little parody that goes "with liberty for just us, not all"
i do believe it is more accurate

What surprises me most is that, as we've just had cable TV installed (and PBS is still the best thing on ... MTV Hits? What is that?) and I was stunned to find this story still paralyzed on certain arguments.

With hosts making a point of asking guests what they thought, I was impressed by Nachman's response to Lester Holt, which basically put a brief review of the law as it stands and then discussed the impropriety of the monument. I had a good moment Sunday with Bill Maher, first watching an interview with Larry King, and then Real Time; having been away from cable from months, it was nice to be back in the rhythm with someone whose method results in my learning when I disagree with him. And even on Maher's show, the argument was stuck a light-year behind reality.

The Christians who saw the preservation of the monument as protected by the First Amendment return to a classic complaint I've had about Christianity since childhood: Why is it that Christians always want "freedom" and "equality" to be defined as Christian supremacy? Why is equal not good enough? Why is it that for Christians equal is only equal if Christians get more than anyone else?

I hope South Carolina is next on the block. Maybe we should locate the Carolinians to Africa and give SC to the Liberians. Give Floridians to Castro and take the rest of Cuba in Florida? Give Texas to the Mexicans and apologize for the burden? ;)

At any rate ... the monument has been moved and the courts get to split some hairs for the benefit of Christians who just don't understand that the Constitution, and not their Bible, is the Supreme Law of the Land in this country.

Fun-fun.

Edit: Just for the heck of it: Monument to an inglorious past (WXXI) (http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wxxi/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=538755)

I am just amazed that Christian fanatics have reached such high level in offices that it is not funny any more...Just imagine a Judge's bias against non-believers who plead their case in front of him ...


There should be a law against such people in high offices that hey have to check their fanatics at the door before entering their offices...

Originally posted by Guru
I am just amazed that Christian fanatics have reached such high level in offices that it is not funny any more...Just imagine a Judge's bias against non-believers who plead their case in front of him ...


There should be a law against such people in high offices that hey have to check their fanatics at the door before entering their offices...

ROFLMAO, the whole crux of people's arguments is that there shall be no law regarding the establishment of religion, hence the court's interpretation that the 10 Commandments must be removed. Then, you say there should be a law against religious people in high office. :eek: Sounds just a tad hypcritical to me.

Imagine an atheist's bias against any believer. It is twistedly funny how so few think so many are crazy, fanatical, lunny, etc.

The trouble is not necessarily with Christians, but with fanaticism in general. Christian fanatics, Muslim Fanatics, Atheist Fanatics...They all annoy me.

Originally posted by truth
Then, you say there should be a law against religious people in high office. :eek: Sounds just a tad hypcritical to me.


erm, the rest of us realized that it was a joke. lighten up and learn to recognize humor.

Originally posted by truth
ROFLMAO, the whole crux of people's arguments is that there shall be no law regarding the establishment of religion, hence the court's interpretation that the 10 Commandments must be removed. Then, you say there should be a law against religious people in high office. :eek: Sounds just a tad hypcritical to me.
I believe he was saying that religious people who hold office shouldn't allow their religious beliefs to influence them when making secular decisions, not that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

Let me clarify my stand here

"There should be a law against such people in high offices that hey have to check their fanatics at the door before entering their offices"...

What I meant by this was that any person who has such fanatic belief is Biased and should not let these strong belief affect his position and job in such high places which touches everyone in the society...

How will you feel if such persons are allowed to bring his/her brand of belief in these offices and intimidate non-believers. I think every person who is well read has a justifiable passion which he does like to share..but using his Govt Job is not ethical for displaying such passions....

what if I believe we were genetically created by Aliens and bring a model of Flying saucer and inscribe that we are all children of aliens and all the "belief" that goes with it in NASA's office...They would kick me out for good...

I hope I made myself clear....

Ok Guru, I see what you are saying. The judge in particular, whether he is Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc. should put his beliefs aside. The problem come when an appellate court is reviewing the law, cases, etc. that personal beliefs come into play. I think one of the greatest examples of this Roe v. Wade, abortion. I don't remember how the votes were split, but basically the majority decision was based on the following premise: from the first 10 amendments to the Constitution is inferred a right of privacy, even though one is never stated, then the court concluded that abortion was an emination of a penumbra. In reality there is no right to abortion, let alone privacy. It is a matter of interpretation. That's why everybody gets worried when a S. Ct. justice retires and tries to get conservatives or liberals in there. Their beliefs will influence their decision making. It is expected to be that way.

Where this judge crossed the line is that he was using his office in order to keep the monument there in violation of a higher court's order. Frankly, I think he should be brought before the ethics commitee for improper conduct. Has he acted as a private citizen, it would have been no problem.

We are currently far more affected by the political beliefs of judges than we are their religious beliefs. I would rather see most any case decided by a christian than a political extremest. It is both we must scrutinize closely.

Justice USA

If you agree to a Xian extremist sitting in the place of a judge then why do we like to see a political process in Afghanistan. They also used to have religious extremist running their system of justice. I mean we would like to see moderation in other cultures but would not mind tolerating religious extremism in ours.

I know what you meant was more a choice between Devil and the Deep sea....but I just wanted to surf on that mind set....and it does not attack you in person I just wanted to throw this up for discussion.

I think I was trying to say that a religious extremest in political office is more dangerous because he can "change" the laws so that they are more in line with his personal religious belief.

A religious extremest judge must still "apply the law as it is written" and that usually means using a precedent. Previous similiar cases tried by other judges weigh heaviest in determining any judicial deciscion.
If the personal beliefs of a judge enter into a case it could be cause for the case to be appealed, overturned , or possibly even thrown out of the court entirely.

I appreciate your comments and I do see the situation as being the lesser of two evils. The law should be both written and applied without religious predjudice.:)

Friends of the Ten Commandments

The Lord's Resistance Army (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/lra.htm) of Uganda:The LRA has abducted large numbers of civilians for training as guerrillas; most victims were children and young adults. The LRA abducted young girls as sex and labor slaves. Other children, mainly girls, were reported to have been sold, traded, or given as gifts by the LRA to arms dealers in Sudan. While some later escaped or were rescued, the whereabouts of many children remain unknown.

In particular, the LRA abducted numerous children and, at clandestine bases, terrorized them into virtual slavery as guards, concubines, and soldiers. In addition to being beaten, raped, and forced to march until exhausted, abducted children were forced to participate in the killing of other children who had attempted to escape. Amnesty International reported that without child abductions, the LRA would have few combatants. More than 6,000 children were abducted during 1998, although many of those abducted later escaped or were released. Most human rights NGOs place the number of abducted children still held captive by the LRA at around 3,000, although estimates vary substantially. And the BBC has a habit of pointing out (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2083241.stm): The LRA says it wants to rule Uganda according to the biblical ten commandments. see also - Crosslines Global Report #33: "Children of Grief" (http://www.nonlimit.ch/nsites/crosslines/33x/3363schl.htm) The LRA, a mysterious rebel group which claims it wants to create a society based on the 10 commandments has been waging a war of terror against villagers in Northern Uganda in its determination to topple the government of Yoweri Museveni.

Lewis says what distinguishes events in Northern Uganda from other situations he's dealt with is that, in this case, children are deliberately targeted. "The LRA prey on children and children alone," says Lewis. "It is a psychosis, it is an obsession. It is a determination to destroy children at all costs; to brutalize children, no matter what the consequences." The Ten Commandments, indeed.

IMO The only real problem with Christianity today is its poor implementation. The Christian sects that actually adhere to the spirit of the bible rather than the technicalities (and there are a fair number of them) don't cause problems -- you don't typically see Lutherans or Methodists or Episcopalians or any multitude of other sects trying to infuse their religions into the government.

i thought bush was methodist?

Bush has toyed around with several different churches since getting into politics, however, many friends of the Bush family have said that before he got into politics, Bush only very rarely attended church at all. It really seems like Bush is using religion as a showpiece to accomplish other agendas. I'm not sure what Bush's "Official" religion is, but most of the Methodists I know are not of this fanatic type (Although there is a fundamentalist breakoff sect of the Methodist church that is VERY annoying)

The depth of Bush's faith seems to be in direct proportion to his need for support from the religious right.

If he is speaking before a religious group he will use the terms ,"Evil and Good" repeatedly.

In a speech before a military group he dons his magic pseudo flight jacket and reverts more to using: "the enemys of America" "The haters of freedom".

Workers and union groups are bombarded by the words "good jobs", "employment", and the promise of a good "economy".
His "key" phrases used at the proper tiimes have suduced the heartland of a dumbed down America.

Ironically it is all politics, he doesn't write any of his own material. It is all done by staff members skilled in the obfuscation of truth.

the scary thing about this monument is that a poll was taken and 4 out of 5 americans think it should of stayed. stuff like that makes me embarassed to be an american. people cant even understand their on constitution of its rationale