It was an interesting decision to give Alabama  Judge Roy Moore the boot for his display of the Ten Commandments. IMO, I don't think he was too far in the wrong since his monument is in his court and there is nothing on the Ten Commandments that I see offensive and threatening to others. Then again i can see the other side of the story too.....

Whatever- I'll take no position on this one.

What did you guys think?

*More than likely yall have already talked about it on another thread, so if you have, post the link

I think that the punishment was overly harsh even if he was in the wrong.  His next punishment may be to be elected to the governorship of Alabama.

Gunham,

He was only fired or removed from his position. It's not like he's doing time. And the only reason they fired him was because of his stubborndness and him placing himself "above the law". They tried to reason with him, but he proved himself to be unreasonable.

Quoted: Gunham, He was only fired or removed from his position. It's not like he's doing time. And the only reason they fired him was because of his stubborndness and him placing himself "above the law". They tried to reason with him, but he proved himself to be unreasonable.

Whoops!  Didn't last long...

Whatever- I'll take no position on this one.

Quoted: I don't think he was too far in the wrong since his monument is in his court and there is nothing on the Ten Commandments that I see offensive and threatening to others.

To me, they are neither offensive, nor are they threatening, unless used in an offical context.  Why?  Because a couple mandate belief.  State mandates of belief are contrary to the 1st ammendment.  Take the 1st four one by one.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
This establishes the superiority of the Christian/Jewish god. It really leaves no option specific to freedom, does it...

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
This is an early method of countering paganisim, as they are prone to 'idol worship'.  Disallow idol worship, and the threat of paganisim is greatly diminished.  How can anyone deny that this one is clearly a religious mandate with no bearing on common law.  It's kind of like the 'don't eat pork' thing...

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' MY GOD?  I'll thank you for not declaring who my god is...

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'  Another clear religious mandate, implying worship.  

Let the fireworks begin...

Judge Moore was in the right.
Judges don't make law they interprete it.
He does not think he is above the law, he just stood up for what he believes. (There is no law saying you can't have the Ten Commandments displayed.
Any law contrary to the U.S. Constitution is null and void.
There is nothing in the Constitution about seperation of Church and State.
Judge Moore should be re-appointed to the bench and the others who unamimously voted him off should be removed.
If Judge Moore wants to run for Governor he should, I hope he would win.

For what it's worth he broke his oath to the constitution when he failed to follow the order of a Federal Judge. In essence he used his own interpetations to decide what the first amendment said. That is not his job and he overstepped his authority. I'm glad of the decision.

Quoted: There is nothing in the Constitution about seperation of Church and State.

Word game player eh?  Well, then there's nothing in the constitution about a citizens right to purchase and store arms.  

Quoted: Quoted: There is nothing in the Constitution about seperation of Church and State. Word game player eh?  Well, then there's nothing in the constitution about a citizens right to purchase and store arms.

I disagree DP. That's not a word game. Establishing a state religion and completely removing religious context from every public display are two different things.

Quoted: I disagree DP. That's not a word game. Establishing a state religion and completely removing religious context from every public display are two different things.

I agree, but that wasn't the comment being addressed.

-"In God We Trust" on money: No problem
-Crosses on vet graves: No problem (they deserve such an expression of their faith)
-Boy scouts on public grounds: No problem, more power to them
-Shrine to the 10 commandments in a state supreme court: BIG PROBLEM

death to all the christian taliban!

Consider what the word "establishment" meant during the FF's time in reference to "establishment of religion".

To "establish" a religion, which is what the FF's wrote the 1st Amendment for, means that the State would be the highest authority of a particular religious denomination (like the Church of England was in Colonial times) and that there would be no other denominations permitted.

It meant that the State would dicate all the rules of how the religion would be organized and run and who the Church leaders would be.

That's a far cry from simply posting a statue of words common to the Jewish and Christian religions and all the dozens of denominations thereof.

BTW... if it were words from the Koran - it probably wouldn't be supported by the people of Alabama and wouldn't even be an issue. THEY would have acted (through the legislature) to remove it.


You have no right to FORCE the Gov't (of the people) to post your favorite religious sayings on a public plaque and you have no right to FORCE the Gov't (of the people) to remove certain religious sayings from a public plaque.

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Quoted: -Shrine to the 10 commandments in a state supreme court: BIG PROBLEM

So would that mean that the shrine to the 10 commandments in the SCOTUS is a big problem too?

Quoted: It was an interesting decision to give Alabama  Judge Roy Moore the boot for his display of the Ten Commandments...

For the record, BS, he was not removed for placing the monument in the Judicial Complex - he was removed from office for "ethics violations," more specifically for refusing to obey a (illegitimate/illegal, IMO) federal court order which directed him to remove said monument, in direct opposition to his oath of office and our state's constitution.

Repeat after me:

STATE SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE does not equal CONGRESS.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT does not equal ESTABLISHMENT.

(with apologies to Scottman - but he just put it so well...)


You asked for a link:  www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=214845&w=searchPop

Quoted: You have no right to FORCE the Gov't (of the people) to post your favorite religious sayings on a public plaque and you have no right to FORCE the Gov't (of the people) to remove certain religious sayings from a public plaque.

So there's a contradiction where you are choosing to error on the side of mob rules.  You seem to be greying out the definition of 'establishment' in favor of 'free exersise thereof'.  Thus, the majority can freely exersise religion directly into government as long as they stay away from creating a 'Department of Jesus'.  Great, now my kids can officially learn that the incomplete theory of evolution is complete bunk, and that we were invented by a deity as rats in a giant maze where only one narrow path leads anywhere but permanent pain.  (but I digress)

I will not quote the 2nd, as we all know what it says, but the consititution also holds
We the People of the United States....insure domestic Tranquility.... promote the general Welfare. Thus we have another contradiction.  Can your right to own guns be trumped by the overall goal of 'general welfare' if a majority of people believe that guns do more harm than good (which most people believe)?

Quoted: For what it's worth he broke his oath to the constitution when he failed to follow the order of a Federal Judge. In essence he used his own interpetations to decide what the first amendment said. That is not his job and he overstepped his authority. I'm glad of the decision.

DEAD WRONG!  Our state constitution, which his oath of office required him to uphold, specifically recognizes God.

Religion sucks, abolish them all

Complete waste of time and removing the burden of morality from the individual to some bullshit someone made up 2,000 years ago (or more)

Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc all good ideas, but those ideas are necessary for men to live together.

You will live here on earth and turn into dirt when you die. Do the best you can and don't fuck with anyone else's good time.

Quoted: Nice try www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

So what you and Snopes.com are inferring is that a carving on (each of) the wooden doors of the Supreme court chamber which depict two round-top stone tablets with the roman numerals I-X engraved in them does NOT represent the ten commandments?  Right.

So if Judge Moore's monument had not had the commandments spelled out in writing, could it stay in the building?

Quoted: Religion sucks, abolish them all Complete waste of time and removing the burden of morality from the individual to some bullshit someone made up 2,000 years ago (or more) Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc all good ideas, but those ideas are necessary for men to live together. You will live here on earth and turn into dirt when you die. Do the best you can and don't fuck with anyone else's good time.

Well said! I think I said the same thing when I was 13 or 14 years old.

i thought that it was illegal to fire someone for their religious convictions

Quoted: Quoted: So if Judge Moore's monument had not had the commandments spelled out in writing, could it stay in the building? I don't understand you here. You mean if it was a rock with the roman numerals for 1 through 10?

Yes, the monument the same size and shape, located in the same spot with only the Roman numerals carved into it. Could it stay then? Not that I am hoping that a compromise will be struck. I honestly don't see the "danger of intolerance" in one and NOT in the other.

All one has to do to find out the true motivation as to why so many want it there, is to simply ask.  Why should it be there?  Does it change things if it's there?  If it does, perhaps we who believe it should not be there are correct, as religion is then directly influencing state policy.  So, I pose the question, why should it be there?  ('Because' we like it, is not a good answer)

I think the answer that you will get is that the ten commandments are some of the foundations of western law. Clearly the founding fathers were influenced in their thinking by Judeo-Christian tradition. That's a poorly worded reason that you will get when you ask that question. Someone else could do better.

But the flipside is more important IMO. Why should it not be there? What do we lose when we have a visual representation of the ten commandments (with or without spelling them out).

Greek and Roman philosiphy, as well as English Common law also contribute heavily.

Don't you see that by saying 'most like it' and that 'we're historically a Christian nation' you are justifying possible violations of the consitution?  The bill of rights was designed so that the rights of the few can not be trumped by the weight of the masses.  

There are thousands of absolute hardcore criminals out there and are able to evade justice because justice is constrained by the concept of individual rights.  Because these people are so foul, do you want to give LE a pass on constitutional protections so they can simply go get'em and lock'em up?  Rights must be applied equally to all, without exception, otherwise a right becomes a revokable privledge.

the following my personal opinion only...

I think Moore is a moron. The only reason he was eleceted to that position was because of his prior 10 commandments issue. Not on his ruliings or qualifications.

I do not have a problem with the monument or the plaque he had in his court room. During his first fight i thought he was standing on priciple and i applauded him for his stand.

The issue with the monument was nothing more than an IN YOR FACE slap to those that oppsed him. He was in a VERY good position to carry his fight forward through the legal system. He has now tossed that effort completely down the drain.

I firmly beleive he is now trying to ride this issue into another political office. He will likely win. Listening to this man speak gives me a VERY uneasy feeling. Not because of his religious nature< i respect that> but because of his vengeful tone at his press conferences.

This monument issue was a loosing battle from day one and he knew it. He wasted a pile of TAXPAYER money for a personal issue. <that in itself should have been criminal>

mike

Quoted: Quoted: For what it's worth he broke his oath to the constitution when he failed to follow the order of a Federal Judge. In essence he used his own interpetations to decide what the first amendment said. That is not his job and he overstepped his authority. I'm glad of the decision. DEAD WRONG!  Our state constitution, which his oath of office required him to uphold, specifically recognizes God.

YEP!!    

And Judge Moore has EXPOSED, for ALL to see, that our system of Law, has in FACT become UN-lawful...

Everyone will make excuses, but we have become a nation under men, rather than under God..

As it is written...

2 Tim 4;1 ¶ I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2  Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5  But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.



We are in THAT time.....



Get out of the Cities!!!        

Quoted: YEP!!

 Now Now...  Don't let me catch you complaining about the unconstitutional nature of California's AWB, as clearly it's a states right issue, and the 2nd only applies to Federal law.

Everyone will make excuses, but we have become a nation under men, rather than under God..

 Happily so!  

As it is written... 2 Tim 4;1 ¶ I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2  Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5  But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. We are in THAT time..... Get out of the Cities!!!

Now do you understand why some call you guys the 'Christian Taliban'?

Quoted: Greek and Roman philosiphy, as well as English Common law also contribute heavily.

I'll cede you that, although it was my impression that English common law also had some roots in Judeo-Christian thought.

Don't you see that by saying 'most like it' and that 'we're historically a Christian nation' you are justifying possible violations of the consitution?  The bill of rights was designed so that the rights of the few can not be trumped by the weight of the masses.

I will again agree with you to the point that no one wants to see the rights of the minority, whoever they may be, trampled underfoot. Unfortunately, that whole concept has been turned on its ear. More often than not the rights and desires of the many are trumped by the influence of the minority. As a white, heterosexual married Christian male I am at the bottom of the food chain -- as they say down here in Alabama,suckin hind tit -- when it comes to exercising my rights in the public domain.

There are thousands of absolute hardcore criminals out there and are able to evade justice because justice is constrained by the concept of individual rights.  Because these people are so foul, do you want to give LE a pass on constitutional protections so they can simply go get'em and lock'em up?

In a way, yes. If there are hardcore criminals who are wreaking havok on society because the justice system failed to dot the I's or cross the T's, yes, get them off the streets.

Rights must be applied equally to all, without exception, otherwise a right becomes a revokable privledge.

In regard to the above mentioned criminals, it is the criminal who revokes his right to participate in a free society by not adhering to the law.

All in all DP, I see your points and they are valid. I happen to think that society as a whole paints things grey way too much. Most things in life are really black and white. Right and wrong are usually self evident.

Rather than legislate and ejudicate according to simple principles there is too much of the "if we do this, then that might happen. Rather than trying to allow for every freakin contingency, put things in a simple order. And if and when an individual case falls outside the norm, additional consideration could be made.

{I just re read that and I went way beyond the scope of your comments and overboard with the italics}

We have already had this argument once before, but here it goes again. First of all, I agree with Beer Slayer and Atencio.

You can argue all you want to about the constitutionality of having the ten commandments there,etc. but here are some simple facts to think about:

-Judge Roy Moore moved the Ten Commandments statue into the atrium of the Courthouse in the MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT without giving any forewarning to his fellow judges.

Would a truly ethical man have to sneak around in the middle of the night doing this? Would a truly ethical man not have the common courtesy to run his idea past his peers to make sure they all thought this was okay? And it is NOT their courthouse, it is ours, the people of Alabama's. Made from Italian marble even though we have marble quarried right here in our own state, a waste of millions of taxpayers dollars. Sorry, a sideline rant.

-Judge Roy Moore directly disobeyed an order from a Federal Judge. If you don't see the irony of a Judge disobeying a direct order from another (higher) Judge, don't bother responding because you need the few brain cells you have left. Don't waste them on this topic.  

Now my own opinion is that Roy Moore is a power grubber who has found his platform. He used his Ten Commandments in his courtroom to get him the press needed for election to State Supreme court. He is now trying to use his monument to achieve higher political aspirations. Some of you may not know who Richard Scrushie is. He is the former CEO of Healthsouth right here in Alabama that has been robbing stockholders for years. I knew the guy was a crook by simply meeting him one time and watching him on TV. Judge Roy Moore unfortunately shares many of the same traits as Richard Scrushie. He gives me the same uneasy feeling when I see him in interviews. Roy Moore probably will be given more power, and he will certainly abuse it. This is not going to have a happy ending, but then again, nothing does in Alabama politics.

I would be supportive of Judge Roy Moore if he had handled this argument in a different way and if he was truly doing this for the right reasons. But he is doing it for himself. For those of you who disagree, give him time. He will prove who he really is before all is said and done. Many a charlatan has held up the good book as he rifled through the pockets of his congregation. Old boy Roy just happens to have an entire state listening to his good word.

Quoted: Quoted: YEP!!  Now Now...  Don't let me catch you complaining about the unconstitutional nature of California's AWB, as clearly it's a states right issue, and the 2nd only applies to Federal law. And this is a states rights issue just how?? Everyone will make excuses, but we have become a nation under men, rather than under God..  Happily so! You will sing a different tune.. As it is written... 2 Tim 4;1 ¶ I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2  Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5  But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. We are in THAT time..... Get out of the Cities!!! Now do you understand why some call you guys the 'Christian Taliban'?

Here, go get educated.......

Each form of government has a guiding principle:  monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear.  Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others.  The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people.  The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible.  This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's.  Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960).  God was seen as the author of natural law and morality.  If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base.  And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community.  The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church.  The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld.  Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice.  It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship.  Instead, it was to be our servant.  The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights.  Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important.  Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs.  The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage.  Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people.  The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible:  that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so.  They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God.  They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness.  Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err.  Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation.  The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3)   We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas.  This is exactly what two professors did.  Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources.  The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations.  Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions.  That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible.  The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government.  If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government.  An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..."  The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government:  judicial, legislative, and executive.  As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government.


www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

Continued...

Continued..


I suppose George Washington was "Christian Taliban", too???

"The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!"

"The General orders this day to be religiously observed by the forces under his Command, exactly in manner directed by the Continental Congress. It is therefore strictly enjoined on all officers and soldiers to attend Divine service, And it is expected that all those who go to worship do take their arms, ammunition and accoutrements, and are prepared for immediate action, if called upon."

"To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian."

"Let my heart therefore gracious God be so affected with the glory and majesty of it, that I may not do mine own works but wait on Thee, and discharge those weighty duties Thou required of me: and since Thou art a God of pure eyes, and will be sanctified in all who draw nearer to Thee, who dost not regard the sacrifice of fools, nor hear sinners who tread in Thy courts, pardon I beseech Thee, my sins, remove them from Thy presence, as far as the east is from the west, and accept of me for the merits of Thy son Jesus Christ, that when I come into Thy temple and compass Thine altar, my prayer may come before Thee as incense, and as I desire Thou wouldst hear me calling upon Thee in my prayers, so give me peace to hear the calling on me in Thy word, that it may be wisdom, righteousness, reconciliation and peace to the saving of my soul in the day of the Lord Jesus.



You should learn some history there youngster...






OR go join those who oppose the God of our founders......

Excellent post, Liberty.

Quoted:Here, go get educated....... Each form.....blah blah blah... www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

Perhaps you should get your education from more than one source...

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

A much more interesting read is here:

www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

Quoted: We have already had this argument once before, but here it goes again. First of all, I agree with Beer Slayer and Atencio. You can argue all you want to about the constitutionality of having the ten commandments there,etc. but here are some simple facts to think about: -Judge Roy Moore moved the Ten Commandments statue into the atrium of the Courthouse in the MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT without giving any forewarning to his fellow judges. Would a truly ethical man have to sneak around in the middle of the night doing this? Would a truly ethical man not have the common courtesy to run his idea past his peers to make sure they all thought this was okay? ...

bj,

We can agree to disagree about Moore, the monument, the color of the sky, etc. - that's what this country is all about.  But please get your "facts" from somewhere other than the local evening news.  As long as folks keep perpetuating this lie, I'll keep correcting them.

He scheduled the monument to be delivered at 6pm to avoid any disruption of normal operations during business hours.  This only makes sense.  The shipping company was delayed in their delivery - not his doing or fault.  As Chief Justice, he didn't have to "sneak" anything in the building - that was a unilateral decision which was his to make just like every Chief Justice before him.  And several of the Justices and Judges in that building knew the monument was coming, and roughly when.  

So disagree with his actions, motives, hairdo, whatever as much as you want - but PLEASE quit perpetuating a lie by saying he "snuck it into the building in the middle of the night"...

Hardshell,

I agree that we have done this dance before and there is no point in hashing out the big argument one more time.

As far as how the monument was brought into the building, unfortunately my only source for information is the nightly news. I agree that the news in Alabama is shitty at best. And I do not like using it as my only source of information. If you have any sources to back your claim then I would love to see them. I believe that your wife works for one of the judges and has inside information, but I don't consider that a reliable, quotable source. For now, all I have to go on is what I have heard from a few attorneys in town and what has been said by the media, which is the monument was snuck in late at night. I am not saying that they are lies or not. I just don't have any other information to say otherwise.

So show me that what I am saying is a lie and I will be more than happy to change my tune.

And maybe we can go dump some brass next time I am in Monkeytown as a truce?

Quoted: Quoted: Gunham, He was only fired or removed from his position. It's not like he's doing time. And the only reason they fired him was because of his stubborndness and him placing himself "above the law". They tried to reason with him, but he proved himself to be unreasonable. Whoops!  Didn't last long... Whatever- I'll take no position on this one.

"Taming of the tongue" can be difficult for me sometimes.

bigjuice,

I can't give you a "quoteable source," all I can tell you is what really happened.  The SPLC drones told the media that "he snuck it into the building in the middle of the night" - that made for much more entertaining "news" than what really happened, so that's the story that got repeated.  And repeated.  And repeated some more.  There are legitimate issues to contend over here, I just think it's a shame that one of the most-used (and, sadly, effective) attacks on Moore is an outright distortion of the truth.  But I can't prove that to anyone, and I shouldn't have to.  Look at how accurately the media reports about politics & firearms issues and judge for yourself...

Anyway, no "truce" necessary - we're all friends here!  

And you'd be welcome to come shoot with me up in the big town of Slapout anytime...  Well, anytime but not real soon - my neighbor and I are about to build a private range on some of our adjoining land, plus I've got a newborn at home pretty much taking up all of my "free time" right now, so let's say anytime next year...

Quoted: You will sing a different tune..

Unlikely!

Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others.  The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people.  The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible.  This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's.  Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960).  God was seen as the author of natural law and morality.  If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base.  And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community.

 Yes, America was a corruption free utopia pre 1960, completely devoid of any misdeeds committed by authorities.  Why don't you ask an indian or black man if he would agree?  The real issue is that you believe that there was a point in our history where paradise was to be found.  People only reflect back to 'the good old days' because they were young, not because those were actually good times.

Make no mistake, I'm not happy with the condition of our country.  I'm just not going to ask WWJD to solve any of our problems.

It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

 That's seriously naive.

i have to agree with hardshell on the "he snuck it in issue"

As i recall the reports clearly indicated this was not the case. Investigations have shown it to be exactly as he has stated.

I wish i could beleive Moore was genuine in his arguments. I guess i have seen to many posers trying to make a name for themselves in this state. He has blown a tremendous oportunity to accomplish his goals. Frankly i think it was done purposly to further another agenda.

mike