Subject:
|
Re: Moore foolishness than ever
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Aug 2003 04:40:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
245 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
I’ve resisted introducing this topic because we’ve been over it before, and
the main issue is, to me, entirely resolved and crystal clear. But
Roy Moore
still keeps going on about his unconstitutional monument to his hubris.
|
Ahem. There is only one item in the Constitution of the United States that has
any direct bearing on this as a religious matter, and that’s the First
Amemdment. To quote the appropriate section:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Let me repeat that, in case you didn’t catch it the first time around:
“Congress (he’s a judge, not a congress) shall make no law (he was not
attempting to make any laws that I’m aware of) respecting an establishment of
religion (while this is obviously seen as a State vs. Christian matter, it
should be pointed out that the Ten Commandments also apply to Judaism and
Islam), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (and this technically counts as
his “free exercise thereof”)”
Now, whether he is legally allowed to install a monument (secular or religious)
in the middle of the courthouse without first obtaining permission (even if only
from his fellow judges) is a different matter, but his action wasn’t
particularly unconstitutional. People in this country have a long history of
misinterpreting the 1st Amendment to mean that anyone on a government payroll is
not legally allowed to admit knowledge of or participation in any religion while
“on the clock”, but it’s really only intended to prevent Congress from
suppressing any religions, either by making laws directly against them, or by
requiring everyone to join some sort of State Church. Notice that any inclusion
of any image of Jesus, list of the Ten Commandments, or any other similar icon
instantly causes a giant fuss about the “seperation of church and state” or
about how they’re “unconstitutional”, but noone has challenged the U.S. Dept. of
Treasury for including the phrase “In God We Trust” on every piece of U.S.
currency, or public schools for having students recite the phrase “...one
nation, under god...” every morning. Well, except the 9th District, but I
seriously doubt we should start looking to them for profound insight on
Constitutional interpretation, given the frequency of their rulings being
overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Moore foolishness than ever
|
| (...) The currency itself is unconstitutional. And if only it were the Dept. of the Treasury issuing the "coin" of our realm -- instead it is issued by the Federal Reserve. Not the same thing at all. See the U.S. Constitution Art. I, sections 8 and (...) (21 years ago, 27-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Moore foolishness than ever
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote: I take it, from your exegesis of the Amendment, that you'd have no problem with a state legislature outlawing Christianity, am I correct? Or how about a state legislature that requires Scientology to (...) (21 years ago, 27-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Moore foolishness than ever
|
| I've resisted introducing this topic because we've been over it before, and the main issue is, to me, entirely resolved and crystal clear. But (URL) Roy Moore> still keeps going on about his unconstitutional monument to his hubris. So what's the (...) (21 years ago, 26-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
