Enough of this bullshit. This is one particular flavor of christianity over every other goddamn religion on the planet. Cut it out. Hell, call it AlabamaChiefJusticeWhoIsBreakingTheLawByIgnoringTh eSupremacyClauseIsm for all I care.
Sounds like no one knows what those words mean, and that they can be interpreted anyway that need be. In fact, it sounds like words like "Christian" are thrown around to mean "bad authoritarian people". It's more about dissing a perceived belief system than it is about the words. The fact that it's in Alabam is bonus point for us intellegensia (note the spelling).
Sounds like no one knows what those words mean, and that they can be interpreted anyway that need be. In fact, it sounds like words like "Christian" are thrown around to mean "bad authoritarian people". It's more about dissing a perceived belief system than it is about the words. The fact that it's in Alabam is bonus point for us intellegensia (note the spelling).
Thanks for making the point!
And next time, don't get so frustrated.
Being a political whore is a chore.
No, not really. It is clear that these commandments reflect the particular flavor of christianity that this Justice believes in. It is clear that you are ignoring the real argument and trying to somehow prove that I hate christians or some other irrelevant bullshit.
It is clear that the Feds ruled AGAINST THE JUSTICE.
Wow, Jim, I like how you just skirt around the issue using the "broken record" technique! It's almost as effective as calling someone retarded or high.
As BR said, it's promoting a religion. Because the government is not allowed to promote ANY religion, it doesn't matter WHICH religion is being promoted. Just like if someone commits murder, it doesn't matter if they killed a street bum or the CEO of a large company, they will be punished equally (not necessarily in our flawed legal system, but nothing is perfect, and that's for a different discussion altogether). The murderer can't get up on the witness stand and defend himself by constantly raising questions about the identity of the victim.
I really don't care which religion it's promoting, but it needs to stop. I really don't care who was killed yesterday, but the killer should still be punished.
Promoting but not enforcing legally.
Please define the issue that I'm skirting.
Which religion to these words belong to? I've heard they are flawed translations, I've heard they can be for Jews, Christian, Muslims and their various sects. As far as I am concerned, they are just words with no legal enforcement behind them. If people choose to read something into them, we cannot pass laws that prevent private interpretation, there are better things to do like take care of the killers.
Once, twice, thrice unbelieveable. Let's include everyone! If you represent "all" religions, then you might as well through in Satanic religions, Wahabi muslims, and people that worship those who ahve sex with furniture. Your statement and belief is exactly what is wrong.
The whole point is the absurdity of such an idea. It can't be reaonsalby accomodating to all religions, and the government should not play favorites. What's wrong is that this sculpture would imply exactly that, though I'm not saying that any malice was meant in the first place.
Which religion to these words belong to? I've heard they are flawed translations, I've heard they can be for Jews, Christian, Muslims and their various sects. As far as I am concerned, they are just words with no legal enforcement behind them. If people choose to read something into them, we cannot pass laws that prevent private interpretation, there are better things to do like take care of the killers.
It is clear that the Feds ruled AGAINST THE JUSTICE.
So once again, which denomination is being promoted here?
Are you blundering around with a debating trick, or do you really imagine yourself to have some blindingly keen insight by asking this "which denomination" question over and over again, as if anyone who disagrees with you isn't so clever as you to have considered this?
Which religion to these words belong to? I've heard they are flawed translations, I've heard they can be for Jews, Christian, Muslims and their various sects. As far as I am concerned, they are just words with no legal enforcement behind them. If people choose to read something into them, we cannot pass laws that prevent private interpretation, there are better things to do like take care of the killers.
1. Promoting could also be defined as "respecting," which is the exact word used in the FIRST clause of the FIRST amendment. No respecting the establishment of a religion. Clearly, "promoting" a religion is also "respecting" a religion. So you can't say that "just promoting, not actually enforcing" is okay, because it's not.
2. You're ignoring the issues at hand, which are the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, and also the SUPREMACY CLAUSE. Instead you keep asking which religion the Ten Commandments are promoting. You know what? I doesn't fücking matter which religion they are promoting, although it's obvious that any religion that takes the Old Testament as a holy book would be promoted by this display. Instead of trying to argue with me over what religion it's supporting, why don't you just realize that "respecting an establishment of religion" is unconstitutional?
ALSO, as BR mentioned, you're ignoring the supremacy clause! I don't even care if you think the ruling is wrong, but the US Supreme Court ORDERED Judge Moore to remove the statue and he blatantly REFUSED! That's the other legal issue. This man is breaking the law and he should be punished for it, even if he was right (which he isn't).
3. QUIT ASKING ME WHAT RELIGION IT BELONGS TO!!! You obviously know, and I, not being the unquestioned EXPERT in religion that you are, cannot answer that question with confidence. You're trying to discredit my valid arguments by casting doubt on my knowledge of this subject. Well there, I just admitted it, I can't say much about the specifics of a religion with any sort of confidence. But I have read the constitution, I have learned about it, and THAT is the real issue. Quit bullshitting.
Are you blundering around with a debating trick, or do you really imagine yourself to have some blindingly keen insight by asking this "which denomination" question over and over again, as if anyone who disagrees with you isn't so clever as you to have considered this?
So the point here is how the Law is to be held above all else?
The law should be followed. So instead of, say, shooting people randomly, you DON'T shoot people randomly. If you are given an order to appear before a court, you don't skip out, you show up. If you are a judge given an order by a higher court to do something, you don't ignore it, you follow it, because IT'S THE LAW.
Fine. This judge was found guilty of breaking the law by a court. I take it a punishment was handed down and it is not being enforced? Or is he trying some crazy appeals process?
Fine. This judge was found guilty of breaking the law by a court. I take it a punishment was handed down and it is not being enforced? Or is he trying some crazy appeals process?
He was ordered to remove it.
He refuses to remove it.
He threatens to prevent others from removing it.
As far as I know nothing has been done about his contempt yet.
The state of Alabama is getting a $5000 per day fine as long as the commandments stay up.
So Alabama's taxpayers are footing the bill for one judge's poor judgement. Heh, a judge's poor judgement... I don't know if he actually will be unseated, but he should be. Or he should resign.
"They said they hope the monument will be removed by then. And if it isn't, they will revisit the possibility of pursuing contempt charges against the state -- which could trigger $5,000-a-day fines until the monument is removed. "
Maybe sorta we'll kinda punish 'em?
This doesn't sound like law enforcement. Looks like things are still up in the air on the execution of the law.
And here is another problem as well:
"Moore installed the monument in August 2001 without consulting other justices. The lawsuit was filed shortly after."
Lets say this was a work of art. For one man to decide what to put up without consulting his peers? In this case, it ain't breaking the law, but prejudice on what should be placed where. And pre-judging is something no judge should have.
"They said they hope the monument will be removed by then. And if it isn't, they will revisit the possibility of pursuing contempt charges against the state -- which could trigger $5,000-a-day fines until the monument is removed. "
Maybe sorta we'll kinda punish 'em?
This doesn't sound like law enforcement. Looks like things are still up in the air on the execution of the law.
Right. And that's wrong. The Judge himself is stopping this. The Judge himself needs to be held in contempt.
Actually the dopey monument is made of 5000 lbs. solid granite and a real biatch to remove... the court is giving them "ample" time to get it out.
Plus the courthouse is surrounded by fanatics... they may wait til things settle down and then remove it in the dead of night.
The Attorney General of Alabama said he thinks the monument should stay but will uphold the law and have it removed... he'll probably stall until there's some sort of an appeal.
The Attorney General of Alabama said he thinks the monument should stay but will uphold the law and have it removed... he'll probably stall until there's some sort of an appeal.
Sounds like the rule of Law is being followed through.
Sounds like the rule of Law is being followed through.
For some, Justice delayed is justice achieved.
The Fed wanted to block it from view with some dividers. The judge threatened to come down himself and tear them down if they do so. Is that justice achieved? No.
Anyway, I heard some mention of an appeal while listening to NPR today, but I don't remember any specifics. I'm sure he's just stalling, but eventually it'll have to get moved unless the Supreme Court somehow reverses their decision which seems very unlikely.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
Enough of this bullshit. This is one particular flavor of christianity over every other goddamn religion on the planet. Cut it out. Hell, call it AlabamaChiefJusticeWhoIsBreakingTheLawByIgnoringTh eSupremacyClauseIsm for all I care.
Sounds like no one knows what those words mean, and that they can be interpreted anyway that need be. In fact, it sounds like words like "Christian" are thrown around to mean "bad authoritarian people". It's more about dissing a perceived belief system than it is about the words. The fact that it's in Alabam is bonus point for us intellegensia (note the spelling).
Thanks for making the point!
And next time, don't get so frustrated.
Being a political whore is a chore.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Sounds like no one knows what those words mean, and that they can be interpreted anyway that need be. In fact, it sounds like words like "Christian" are thrown around to mean "bad authoritarian people". It's more about dissing a perceived belief system than it is about the words. The fact that it's in Alabam is bonus point for us intellegensia (note the spelling).
Thanks for making the point!
And next time, don't get so frustrated.
Being a political whore is a chore.
No, not really. It is clear that these commandments reflect the particular flavor of christianity that this Justice believes in. It is clear that you are ignoring the real argument and trying to somehow prove that I hate christians or some other irrelevant bullshit.
It is clear that the Feds ruled AGAINST THE JUSTICE.
It is clear that there exists a SUPREMACY CLAUSE.
It is clear that the Justice is BREAKING THE LAW.
It is clear that you are IGNORING THIS.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Wow, Jim, I like how you just skirt around the issue using the "broken record" technique! It's almost as effective as calling someone retarded or high.
As BR said, it's promoting a religion. Because the government is not allowed to promote ANY religion, it doesn't matter WHICH religion is being promoted. Just like if someone commits murder, it doesn't matter if they killed a street bum or the CEO of a large company, they will be punished equally (not necessarily in our flawed legal system, but nothing is perfect, and that's for a different discussion altogether). The murderer can't get up on the witness stand and defend himself by constantly raising questions about the identity of the victim.
I really don't care which religion it's promoting, but it needs to stop. I really don't care who was killed yesterday, but the killer should still be punished.
Promoting but not enforcing legally.
Please define the issue that I'm skirting.
Which religion to these words belong to? I've heard they are flawed translations, I've heard they can be for Jews, Christian, Muslims and their various sects. As far as I am concerned, they are just words with no legal enforcement behind them. If people choose to read something into them, we cannot pass laws that prevent private interpretation, there are better things to do like take care of the killers.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Once, twice, thrice unbelieveable. Let's include everyone! If you represent "all" religions, then you might as well through in Satanic religions, Wahabi muslims, and people that worship those who ahve sex with furniture. Your statement and belief is exactly what is wrong.
The whole point is the absurdity of such an idea. It can't be reaonsalby accomodating to all religions, and the government should not play favorites. What's wrong is that this sculpture would imply exactly that, though I'm not saying that any malice was meant in the first place.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Promoting but not enforcing legally.
Please define the issue that I'm skirting.
Which religion to these words belong to? I've heard they are flawed translations, I've heard they can be for Jews, Christian, Muslims and their various sects. As far as I am concerned, they are just words with no legal enforcement behind them. If people choose to read something into them, we cannot pass laws that prevent private interpretation, there are better things to do like take care of the killers.
It is clear that the Feds ruled AGAINST THE JUSTICE.
It is clear that there exists a SUPREMACY CLAUSE.
It is clear that the Justice is BREAKING THE LAW.
It is clear that you are IGNORING THIS.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
So once again, which denomination is being promoted here?
Are you blundering around with a debating trick, or do you really imagine yourself to have some blindingly keen insight by asking this "which denomination" question over and over again, as if anyone who disagrees with you isn't so clever as you to have considered this?
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Promoting but not enforcing legally.
Please define the issue that I'm skirting.
Which religion to these words belong to? I've heard they are flawed translations, I've heard they can be for Jews, Christian, Muslims and their various sects. As far as I am concerned, they are just words with no legal enforcement behind them. If people choose to read something into them, we cannot pass laws that prevent private interpretation, there are better things to do like take care of the killers.
1. Promoting could also be defined as "respecting," which is the exact word used in the FIRST clause of the FIRST amendment. No respecting the establishment of a religion. Clearly, "promoting" a religion is also "respecting" a religion. So you can't say that "just promoting, not actually enforcing" is okay, because it's not.
2. You're ignoring the issues at hand, which are the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, and also the SUPREMACY CLAUSE. Instead you keep asking which religion the Ten Commandments are promoting. You know what? I doesn't fücking matter which religion they are promoting, although it's obvious that any religion that takes the Old Testament as a holy book would be promoted by this display. Instead of trying to argue with me over what religion it's supporting, why don't you just realize that "respecting an establishment of religion" is unconstitutional?
ALSO, as BR mentioned, you're ignoring the supremacy clause! I don't even care if you think the ruling is wrong, but the US Supreme Court ORDERED Judge Moore to remove the statue and he blatantly REFUSED! That's the other legal issue. This man is breaking the law and he should be punished for it, even if he was right (which he isn't).
3. QUIT ASKING ME WHAT RELIGION IT BELONGS TO!!! You obviously know, and I, not being the unquestioned EXPERT in religion that you are, cannot answer that question with confidence. You're trying to discredit my valid arguments by casting doubt on my knowledge of this subject. Well there, I just admitted it, I can't say much about the specifics of a religion with any sort of confidence. But I have read the constitution, I have learned about it, and THAT is the real issue. Quit bullshitting.
Originally posted by shetline
Are you blundering around with a debating trick, or do you really imagine yourself to have some blindingly keen insight by asking this "which denomination" question over and over again, as if anyone who disagrees with you isn't so clever as you to have considered this?
So the point here is how the Law is to be held above all else?
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
So the point here is how the Law is to be held above all else?
Yes.
Originally posted by giant
Yes.
Fine. This judge was found guilty of breaking the law by a court. I take it a punishment was handed down and it is not being enforced? Or is he trying some crazy appeals process?
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Fine. This judge was found guilty of breaking the law by a court. I take it a punishment was handed down and it is not being enforced? Or is he trying some crazy appeals process?
He was ordered to remove it.
He refuses to remove it.
He threatens to prevent others from removing it.
As far as I know nothing has been done about his contempt yet.
Originally posted by BR
He was ordered to remove it.
He refuses to remove it.
He threatens to prevent others from removing it.
As far as I know nothing has been done about his contempt yet.
Then he is a criminal, who should be arrested and thrown in jail. What are the reasons the law enforcement officials are giving for not doing so?
So Alabama's taxpayers are footing the bill for one judge's poor judgement. Heh, a judge's poor judgement... I don't know if he actually will be unseated, but he should be. Or he should resign.
Oh yeah, also, I have a link:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/te...nts/index.html
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
The state of Alabama is getting a $5000 per day fine as long as the commandments stay up.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/te...nts/index.html
from cnn.com
"They said they hope the monument will be removed by then. And if it isn't, they will revisit the possibility of pursuing contempt charges against the state -- which could trigger $5,000-a-day fines until the monument is removed. "
Maybe sorta we'll kinda punish 'em?
This doesn't sound like law enforcement. Looks like things are still up in the air on the execution of the law.
And here is another problem as well:
"Moore installed the monument in August 2001 without consulting other justices. The lawsuit was filed shortly after."
Lets say this was a work of art. For one man to decide what to put up without consulting his peers? In this case, it ain't breaking the law, but prejudice on what should be placed where. And pre-judging is something no judge should have.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
from cnn.com
"They said they hope the monument will be removed by then. And if it isn't, they will revisit the possibility of pursuing contempt charges against the state -- which could trigger $5,000-a-day fines until the monument is removed. "
Maybe sorta we'll kinda punish 'em?
This doesn't sound like law enforcement. Looks like things are still up in the air on the execution of the law.
Right. And that's wrong. The Judge himself is stopping this. The Judge himself needs to be held in contempt.
Plus the courthouse is surrounded by fanatics... they may wait til things settle down and then remove it in the dead of night.
The Attorney General of Alabama said he thinks the monument should stay but will uphold the law and have it removed... he'll probably stall until there's some sort of an appeal.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
The Attorney General of Alabama said he thinks the monument should stay but will uphold the law and have it removed... he'll probably stall until there's some sort of an appeal.
Sounds like the rule of Law is being followed through.
For some, Justice delayed is justice achieved.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Sounds like the rule of Law is being followed through.
For some, Justice delayed is justice achieved.
The Fed wanted to block it from view with some dividers. The judge threatened to come down himself and tear them down if they do so. Is that justice achieved? No.
Anyway, I heard some mention of an appeal while listening to NPR today, but I don't remember any specifics. I'm sure he's just stalling, but eventually it'll have to get moved unless the Supreme Court somehow reverses their decision which seems very unlikely.