Good Birmingham Post-Herald Article on Moore

[Orsorum]

Jesus christ, you two, this is one of the reasons I left for a whole day and a half. Tcsenter, I know you're better than to throw insults around. DealMonkey... stop monkeying around.

/steps off soapbox

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Here's a really good link that explores various implementations of the ten commandments and whether they're constitutional or not: Linked. They're not the source of our law. Moral cement? Familiar as ABCs? Pure opinion.

lmao!

Wow. Had I wanted to read about the drafting of the First Amendment and its history, I would have thought to consult something eminently historical such as the Debates in the Convention, the Federalist Papers, or one of the pre-eminent treatises on the Federal Constitution such St. George Tucker's 'American Blackstone', William Rawle's "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America", or Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States".

Little did I know that a fringe leftwing E-mag like Slate.com would be an authoritative source of information on the meaning of the constitution and the First Amendment. Thanks for the tip!

I never claimed the link was the end-all, be-all of constitutional study. It simply shows various implementations of the ten commandments -- notably the ones located in the USSC building -- and how they were decided constitutionally. I thought you would appreciate the pictures. But sure, attack the source if you must, since that's all you seem to have.

 

[tcsenter]

Well? Did you consult those books? They're now on my book list, at least.

Nobody can possibly contribute an informed word to a discussion relating to the Constitution without having read AT LEAST those historical documents and eminent treatises.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Jesus christ, you two, this is one of the reasons I left for a whole day and a half. Tcsenter, I know you're better than to throw insults around. DealMonkey... stop monkeying around.

/steps off soapbox

What did I do? Seriously, I thought I was being civil. Tcsenter seems to be the one throwing around insults... Ad Hominem? Anyone?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Jesus christ, you two, this is one of the reasons I left for a whole day and a half. Tcsenter, I know you're better than to throw insults around. DealMonkey... stop monkeying around.

/steps off soapbox

What did I do? Seriously, I thought I was being civil. Tcsenter seems to be the one throwing around insults... Ad Hominem? Anyone?

I thought you would appreciate the pictures. But sure, attack the source if you must, since that's all you seem to have.

That in itself struck me as a personal flame. Perhaps I am reading too much into it.

 

[tcsenter]

You can attack me all you want tcsenter, however it only proves how weak your argument is. The comments aren't legitimate, because they aren't true. Maybe that's why I couldn't find them.

Again, for the reading comprehension challenged:

Whether you agree with the comments is irrelevant to our discussion. I stated that the article contained "comments supporting the legitimacy of the public display of the Ten Commandments." You asked in response:

I didn't see that. Where? Did you imagine it?

I then reprinted those comments for your edification, since you couldn't seem to find them without my assistance.

The article in fact contains "comments supporting the legitimacy of the public display of the Ten Commandments" exactly as I stated. Whether you agree with those comments is irrelevant and no amount of linking to far-left fringe groups is going to change the fact that I was absolutely correct.

Its not my fault you cannot follow a simple discussion.

I never claimed the link was the end-all, be-all of constitutional study. It simply shows various implementations of the ten commandments -- notably the ones located in the USSC building -- and how they were decided constitutionally. I thought you would appreciate the pictures. But sure, attack the source if you must, since that's all you seem to have.

You do understand that the United States Supreme Court building is REPLETE with religious connotations and references inside and out, including the prominent and public display of the Ten Commandments....right?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

You can attack me all you want tcsenter, however it only proves how weak your argument is. The comments aren't legitimate, because they aren't true. Maybe that's why I couldn't find them.

Again, for the reading comprehension challenged:

Whether you agree with the comments is irrelevant to our discussion. I stated that the article contained "comments supporting the legitimacy of the public display of the Ten Commandments." You asked in response:

I didn't see that. Where? Did you imagine it?

I then reprinted those comments for your edification, since you couldn't seem to find them without my assistance.

The article in fact contains "comments supporting the legitimacy of the public display of the Ten Commandments" exactly as I stated. Whether you agree with those comments is irrelevant and no amount of linking to far-left fringe groups is going to change the fact that I was absolutely correct.

Its not my fault you cannot follow a simple discussion.

I never claimed the link was the end-all, be-all of constitutional study. It simply shows various implementations of the ten commandments -- notably the ones located in the USSC building -- and how they were decided constitutionally. I thought you would appreciate the pictures. But sure, attack the source if you must, since that's all you seem to have.

You do understand that the United States Supreme Court building is REPLETE with religious connotations and references inside and out, including the prominent and public display of the Ten Commandments....right?

Look, I don't need a rehash of the entire conversation. I was initially trying to be sarcastic, but I guess you're incapable of sensing sarcasm when you see it. If you would actually click the link I provided, it shows, with pictures, the USSC displays of the ten commandments. It's useful, because I don't think a lot of people around here have actually seen them....

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

I thought you would appreciate the pictures. But sure, attack the source if you must, since that's all you seem to have.

That in itself struck me as a personal flame. Perhaps I am reading too much into it.

Orsorum - Maybe a little. I'm not sure what to do, this guy is non-stop Ad Hominems. He's barely contributed to this thread...

 

[tcsenter]

Look, I don't need a rehash of the entire conversation. I was initially trying to be sarcastic, but I guess you're incapable of sensing sarcasm when you see it.

Try to learn some of the better nuances of sarcasm so it actually works. Like this:

 

[AEB]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Make it clear to yourself, AEB. Do some research why don't ya?

even tho the burden of proof doesnt rest on me i did research and

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" the closest thing anyone did was the latter. however since it is the courts making all the descisions congress IS NOT INVOLVED. but this still doesnt answer my seperation of church and state question

all this says is CONGRESS cant go one way or the other. all that after 12+ hours very sad

 

[Gaard]

AEB[/i] - <<and if it doesnt bother you guys that courts are making rulings based on what they believe and not what the constitution says...>>

Actually, this would bother me. Which courts, exactly, are guilty of this again? Or, IYO, does displaying a religious monument equal making court rulings based on religious beliefs instead of the law?

 

[AEB]

first of all the higher court made a ruling which it had no right. the tenth amendment says that if congress doesnt make a law on something then it should be left to each state. what the judge did in his state didn't violate any statue or law. the the federal judge decides to ignore that and rule anyway. this is a state issue and should have been left so. thus why i said it

 

[Gaard]

If you're gunna play Hannity, I'll play Colmes. OK? (I watched it too. )

Does Moore have a responsibility to obey a ruling from a higher court?

 

[AEB]

its a great show but i didnt remember the DR's name but he did have a point. and according to the constitution no he doesnt have a responsibility. if a higher court made a ruling that everyone named Gaard that posted in ATOT had to do 50 push-ups everynight would you listen. it may seem rediculous but courts ususally rule on something with substance. this says to me that the federal judge hates religion.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: AEB
its a great show but i didnt remember the DR's name but he did have a point. and according to the constitution no he doesnt have a responsibility. if a higher court made a ruling that everyone named Gaard that posted in ATOT had to do 50 push-ups everynight would you listen. it may seem rediculous but courts ususally rule on something with substance. this says to me that the federal judge hates religion.

I think his name was Dobson.


<<..and according to the constitution no he doesnt have a responsibility.>>

I must have missed that part. Seriously. My wife and her damned spanish soap operas. Did someone point out somewhere where the constitution says this?

 

[PhilsPhan]

Maybe I missed something. Since when was America's government founded on the Christian religion?

John Adams in the Treaty of Tripoli:

Article 11 states:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Now correct me if I am wrong but wasn't John Adams a President of the US and a signer of the Constitution?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: friedpie

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another.

It's a piece of art, it should be treated that way.

Please no it's not ! When you have only hard-core fundi Christians roaring their ugly heads around about this issue and making comments like this


"Protest organizer Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said it is critical for the supporters to remain after the monument's removal to "stand with Christ and against judicial tyranny."

This this was not a piece of artwork and the reactions of those who are invovled clearly point to it not being one !

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030828/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments&cid=519&ncid=716

 

[AEB]

well at any rate i am personally not upset with what happened. they left the commandments in the courthouse just no displayed so prominently. however i think this should apply to anythin that is "special intrest". i heard somewhere they just built a huge monument to homosexuality.

but the most important thing the judge didnt compromise himself
and just because 1 signer said something doesnt really mean TOO much. people can meet in the middle on some issues but not on others.

 

[Gaard]

I'm a little confused. So, when you said ...and according to the constitution no he doesn't have a responsibility>> you were just blowing smoke? Or was it that you just remembered wrong?

 

[AEB]

according to teh constitution and the tenth amendment he didnt have to listen to the federal judge on this issue. i was just reflecting on my previou spost that all he can do now is appeal. which is ironic if you look at it from my argument.