|
Post by Seany-D on Nov 12, 2003 23:33:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FishBait on Nov 12, 2003 23:53:29 GMT -5
hehe, that might be entertaining, in the article i clicked on the interview with roy moore link....
it hurt, ooww, i think i feel stupider now, i didn't know there were people that could be that dumb at all let alone be elected to office he tried to use the first amendment to defend his statue saying that everybody today just doesn't understand the first amendment and that he's trying to educate people on that i think my iq just dropped from having read that
|
|
|
Post by Frogsy on Nov 13, 2003 9:47:04 GMT -5
Does anyone else find it funny that Moore's lawyer's name is "Butts" ?
-Jessica "Seymour" Leiby
|
|
|
Post by Frogsy on Nov 13, 2003 9:54:24 GMT -5
On a more serious note, one of the most disturbing things on that page is the poll... 49% of people who have taken the poll say that Moore should NOT be removed from the Supreme Court.
If you want to argue that the statue itself is not illegal(which it is, but let's play devil's advocate here), that's one thing... but the fact of the matter is that once it was deemed inappopriate, he defied the law. Plain and simple. He called the courts chumps and flat out said, "I am going to defy you because I think you're wrong." Not to mention the fact that he KNEW something was wrong; that's why he moved it in in the middle of the night in the first place!
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was a justice's place to UPHOLD the law, not flat out DISOBEY it. I can't believe this nation is so fucking stupid sometimes.
-Jessica "good riddance, I'm moving to Switzerland" Leiby
|
|
|
Post by Frogsy on Nov 13, 2003 9:57:33 GMT -5
"Without acknowledgement of God, we have no justice system, according to the Constitution. And that, I'm sworn to uphold. "
Quote from Roy Moore.
What Constitution is he reading??
I'm logging off now... it's way too early to deal with this stupidity.
-Jessica "if my blood starts to boil, will I die?" Leiby
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Nov 13, 2003 11:01:05 GMT -5
One thing to bear in mind is that Moore has used the ten commandments as a spring board to advance his political career ... he was an elected judge, not an appointed judge. His comments have more to do with hounding publicity and emotional manipulation than they do of honoring law or religion. On other fronts, the first four commandments (we'll operate under the Catholic version for fun) have little to do with moral conduct; rather they assert religious principles or instruct you to recognize moms and pops. How one could construe them to be the basis of legal foundation is unknown, considering that the Code of Hammurabi predates "Biblical times" or what I'll call Moses Time (MT, homies!) by tens of centuries. I don't think that argument holds water ... then again, I find it amusing that many of those who espouse religious teaching in school (which I support in a way, incidentally; ask my why and how some other time) actually mean they support THEIR OWN teachings, and do not desire to read about other major world religions (is Xtianity a major world religion? Discuss in light of European ethnocentrism). People should be more well-versed in these things ... I suspect that many of the folks praying for Mooreon the steps of the Alabama State Courthouse have never cracked a copy of the Qur'an, for example.
Sean "ignorance is no excuse" Davis
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Nov 13, 2003 11:03:58 GMT -5
Oh, one more thing: the ruling in the ethics trial is due out at noon today. Removal would require a unanimous vote, which I think unlikely; reprimand requires less, and is quite likely.
Sean "thou shalt not disobey US law, either" Davis
|
|
|
Post by Frogsy on Nov 13, 2003 12:23:26 GMT -5
Yes! Yes! Yes!
And folks... he's OUTTA HERE!
-Jessica "doing the happy dance" Leiby
|
|
|
Post by Frogsy on Nov 13, 2003 12:29:21 GMT -5
Oh, and I'm waiting for the "Christians are SO persecuted" spiels to begin.
-Jessica "But so what? The wall is still standing!" Leiby
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Nov 13, 2003 13:22:07 GMT -5
I am pleasantly surprised. What you believe is your business, but using the Supreme Court of Alabama's grounds to further it is unlawful; further ignoring an order of the court renders him ineffective to carry out Alabama state law, and I am pleased that the ethics panel has unanimously recognized this.
Moore is quoted as saying that he was removed because he "acknowledged God". And he's right. To do so while acting as a supreme court justice tears away at the wall. Had he been in a more religiously diverse state, his shenanigans would have never progressed this far. Perhaps now he will be free to pursue that which he seems to actually be setting himself up for -- a political run. I wonder if he's calling Jesse Helms for advice?
Sean "IMHO, justices have no business being politicians" Davis
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Nov 13, 2003 15:29:07 GMT -5
I am glad that Moore was removed. It has been a long established legal principle that federal law is supreme over state law, and a judge, particularly one of Moore's position, should honor and respect that principle. Of course, he has also favored an erroneous interpretation (if you can even call it that, since he says stuff that isn't even in the document in the first place!) of the Constitution, so there should be little surprise at his intentional thumb-biting at federal law.
Moore is more than welcome to acknowledge God all he wants; the problem is when he lets his theological leanings influence his rulings when he is meant to be an impartial judge upholding the Constitution. In his interviews and public speeches he is more than welcome to invoke God and Jesus all he wants, but not in his capacity as a government agent. He can likewise tote his statue all over the country if he wants, but it still does not belong in the lobby of the judicial building.
As for his political ambitions...this is exactly what the Founding Fathers feared: religion being used as a means to gain political power and favor. It corrupts the government by disenfranchising those not of his views who must appear in his court. And even beyond that, it causes a twisted bastardization of religion, uniting religious orthodoxy with political power, thus eliminating the sacred and spiritual nature of religion and religious experience (for those who believe in a religion). Religion is meant to be a matter between a man and whatever power he holds dear (if any), and should not be used in the political arena as Moore (and many other politicians) has done to gain power. All of our most prominent Founding fathers, from Jefferson and Madison to Adams and Washington, all adamantly insisted upon separation for the purity of both government and religion, and it is this idea which formed the two religion clauses of the First Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Nov 13, 2003 16:41:15 GMT -5
I have been listening to The Mighty 1090, WBAL radio, out of ... well, you know where ... to get feedback on the Moore ruling. Most of the folks calling in against the issue are trying to push the argument that the First Amendment only applies to Congress, not the courts, which is laughable. Others are commenting that the Federal Courts have no right interfering in the state's business. These arguments are so thin as to not really warrant consideration, seeing as how preserving the rights of people should be paramount, whether it be to practise their religion or to prevent compulsory religious practises. I sent Ron Smith, the host, a brief email, which he was kind enough to read verbatim on air, calling it "an interesting note" to think about:
"Hi Ron -- Listening to the show up here in East Lansing, MI, for listener feedback on the ethics panel decision on Roy Moore. I fail to understand how the religious right can be so blind as to not see that placing a monument to the Ten Commandments in a public building amounts to a governmental endorsement of religion? The strength of this country is its foundation without an abject reference to a particular god. The US was not founded as a Christian nation; the Barbary Treaties of the late 1700's make that clear. No one is prevented from practising their religion; monuments in public buildings are not needed to remain secure in faith; the pledge of allegiance was originally written without the words "under god" by a prescient Baptist preacher who realized the danger of blurring the wall between church and state. After the shock dies down, perhaps people will realize that "In God We Trust" makes a far poorer national motto than E Pluribus Unum -- out of many, one."
Someone on WBAL is saying "good riddance to bad rubbish" right now concerning the issue, discussing Moore's rulings involving homosexuality amongst other issues.
Sean "should have thrown in a freethinker reference" Davis
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Nov 14, 2003 10:53:02 GMT -5
In the interest of bringing the religious right to the table, I give you Pat "if you're not born-again, you're the anti-Christ" Robertson's interview with Roy Moore. www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/030904a.aspHave fun! Sean "isn't the martyr thing getting old?" Davis
|
|
|
Post by Frogsy on Nov 14, 2003 10:58:32 GMT -5
Seems like more of a circle jerk than a quest for martyrdom to me.
-Jessica "get something to clean that up!" Leiby
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Nov 14, 2003 17:48:42 GMT -5
I'd comment on the interview point by point, but I've touched upon most of that tripe before. But let me add something new: If this country were founded on Biblical principles, then we would be ruled by a monarchy or dictatorship. Democracy is not a biblical principle (see the kings of Israel or Jesus as "the King of Kings"). If this country were founded on biblical principles, then the First Amendment would never have been written as all non-Judeo-Christian religions would have to be put down and eradicated (see the conquests of the Israelite kings and Revelation), and free exercise (even ignoring the Establishment clause) would not exist in any form.
Yet this is a democratic nation (well, it's technically a republic, but the same principle applies), not ruled by a monarch who can claim the "divine right" of kings. Indeed, such a notion, which had been prevalent in Europe at the time, was exactly what this nation's founders wished to avoid. The founding fathers also refused to associate the government with a particular religious view so that people of all such views, "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every denomination," would be free to practice their religions (if any) and free from a government which would make them second-class citizens by means of legalized religious orthodoxy.
|
|