FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-21-2002, 03:26 PM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 13,699
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Maturin:
Counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs filed an amicus brief today on behalf of the BJCPA, the Anti-Defamation League, the Interfaith Alliance, the Interfaith Alliance of Alabama and forty-two Alabama clergy from varying demoninations asking that the display be removed.
Good deal!
crazyfingers is offline  
Old 10-21-2002, 06:32 PM   #12
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 282
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Maturin:
[QB]Counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs filed an amicus brief today on behalf of the BJCPA, the Anti-Defamation League, the Interfaith Alliance, the Interfaith Alliance of Alabama and forty-two Alabama clergy from varying demoninations asking that the display be removed. Haven't studied the brief in detail yet, but at first blush it looks exceptionally good.

QB]
I'm so very glad that the majority of the people in this country don't think that throwing away our religious freedoms is a good idea...

we will not be bullied.
enigma555 is offline  
Old 10-21-2002, 07:37 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Alaska, USA
Posts: 1,535
Smile

Quote:
Originally posted by Babylon Sister:
<strong>It looks to me like Judge Thompson is asking "give him enough rope" questions.</strong>
Just what I was thinking. Based on this, they're gonna have to call 'Ol Roy the "Hanging Judge."

Basically, he's saying the monument doesn't amount to an unconstitutional establishment of religion, because there already is a de facto establishment of religion. (We heard the same thing from defenders of "under God" in the pledge.)

Toto, you've got Roy by the short hairs on "freedom of conscience." I don't imagine it means much legally, but it surely illustrate's the man's ignorance. (I'd say hypocrisy, too, but for all his faults I'm pretty sure Roy is sincere.)
Grumpy is offline  
Old 10-21-2002, 08:55 PM   #14
SLD
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 4,109
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Babylon Sister:
<strong>It looks to me like Judge Thompson is asking "give him enough rope" questions.</strong>
As an attorney who's practiced in front of Thompson, I think you've hit it exactly. Judge Thompson isn't likely to give a damn what people think - he'll follow the law how he sees it and if he sees an attempt to establish a religion, he'll nail them. (pardon the pun)

I should add though that I don't anything about his religious beliefs, nor his political leaning wrt the establishment clause.

Thanks to all those posting the transcripts - keep it up.

SLD
SLD is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 03:51 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO
Posts: 3,515
Post

There are two ways to change the Constitution. One is by amendment, and the other is by putting judges into power that will favor the desired interpretation of the law above all others.

The issue that concerns me most is that Judge Moore was popularly elected by people who knew his position on this issue. And what can be done in Alabama can be done throughout the nation -- to increasingly replace the country's stock of judges with those who think like Judge Moore.

So, the more interesting question in my eyes is. "What is this case doing to Judge Moore's popularity as an elected official, and what lessons will other elected officials draw from it?"

Is this a scandle that is eroding his base of support among those who elected him? Or is this helping him to build that base -- to help secure the election of more people like Judge Moore and the election at the federal level of a president and senate that will appoint people like Judge Moore?

Because if the people can be convinced that the existing law is the enemy and that Moore is a hero for standing up to this enemy, then even if Moore loses this case, he would have achieved a more complete and lasting victory for his side -- for his interpretation -- of the law.
Alonzo Fyfe is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 05:35 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,295
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by SLD:
<strong>

Judge Thompson isn't likely to give a damn what people think - he'll follow the law how he sees it and if he sees an attempt to establish a religion, he'll nail them. (pardon the pun)
</strong>
Thank you for the comments, SLD. It's great to have an "insider" perspective on Judge Thompson's judicial temperament.
Stephen Maturin is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 09:49 AM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

I fell better about Judge Thompson. Perhaps instead of a "casual friendly" conversation, he was conducting a sanity hearing on Judge Moore.
Toto is offline  
Old 10-23-2002, 08:12 AM   #18
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Richmond IN
Posts: 375
Post

Judge Thompson says he'll try to rule by November 18th. Mark your calendars.
beejay is offline  
Old 10-23-2002, 11:58 AM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 11
Question

I've been getting a kick out of this whole thing mainly because the 'commandments' they are fighting over are not the commandments SPECIFICALLY called the "ten commandments" in the Bible. Those can be found in Ex 34:17-26 with the 'official' "ten commandments" stamp given in Ex 34:28. This list of commandments is quite different from the 'popular' commandments enumerated in Ex 20 1-17. Here they are not called commandments only 'words'..."and God spake these words...". (I'm not even sure to whom he is speaking because Moses has already gone down the mountain in Ex 19:25. Just mumbling to himself I guess...). It is not even mentioned that these commandments were written in stone, they were just 'spoken'.

In Exodus chapters 21 thru 30 or so, God is giving Moses all sorts of varied laws and regulations. Finally in Ex 31:18 God gives Moses the 2 "tables of testimony (NOT commandments), tables of stone..." It is these first tables that he throws at his people for partying around the golden calf.

In Ex 34:1 God tell Moses, ok, hew a couple more tables and "I will write in these tables the words that were in the first tables." Well he says He will write them but then in Ex 34:27 He tells Moses to write them. Quite the delegator, God. Moses does this over 40 days and nights (I'm not sure what he used to write them with. Certainly not his finger - no wonder it took him 40days!)without bread or water and he "..wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Ex 34:28) There is a footnote in the RSV that shows the word 'commandments' as coming from the hebrew for 'words'. Why they are called 'words' in Ex 20 and 'commandments' here I don't know.

And what are the 'official' ten commandments here given? They are:

1) Thou shalt worship no other God.
2) Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3) The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.
4) Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
5) Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.
6) Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God.
7) Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
8) Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.
9) The first of the firstfruits of thy land shalt thou bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10) Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

God clearly says that these were the words written on the first tables of stone in Ex 34:1.

Therefore THESE are the commandments that they should be fighting over.
I'm particularly fond of # 10.....that one alone will keep them out of EVERYWHERE......
FOGuy is offline  
Old 10-23-2002, 03:04 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Alaska, USA
Posts: 1,535
Wink

Wow. Never heard that before.

Just one more reason Roy is a schmuck.
Grumpy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:04 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.