What's wrong with the Republicans and how to fix it

[Mott the Hoople]

When a chief justice of a state supreme court orders a 2 ton granite religious monument placed in the lobby of the state supreme court (to the exclusion of every other item offered for display), who is supposed to see to it that this violation of the constitution is removed?

Dixie?

 

[philly rabbit]

The people of the state got got petition signatures that numbered in the hundreds of thousands. But the people of the state did not trespass and remove it, no.

But even if the majority of the people wanted it, and it would not have been for historical reasons, such a blatant violation of the constitution is not legal.

So a circuit court and not the people removed it.

The monument represented the people within the state historically referring to the law as it's founding inspiration in an historical context.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

So a circuit court and not the people removed it.

The monument represented the people within the state historically referring to the law as it's founding inspiration in an historical context.

Horseshit. It represented one state supreme court justice challenging the laws to put his own religious beliefs on display.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

So a circuit court and not the people removed it.

The monument represented the people within the state historically referring to the law as it's founding inspiration in an historical context.

And how would "the people" have removed it? Protests? They happened. Trespassing and breaking in to the building to remove the monument?

 

[Robo]

Here is the problem with your argument for gay marriage; The Constitution says plenty about individual rights and equal protection. If the government is supposed to butt the fuck out of "gay" marriage, why not "polygamist" marriage, or "animal" marriage? Or any number of other sexually deviate behaviors disguised as marriage for the sake of legitimizing the behavior?

Why indeed? According to the Constitution agreeable adult contracts are nobody’s business but the folks that make such contracts. Animals can’t sign contracts so that part of your suggestions is invalid. Again I give you the 9th & 14th amendments. And again for you so-called Christians, I give you the Biblical King Solomon the great man of wisdom and chosen by God to lead a nation that same man that had 1000 wives and 1500 concubine according to the Bible.

If the SCOTUS rules that marriage can be redefined to include or accommodate a specific sexual proclivity, then it also has to allow the inclusion of any sexual proclivity which doesn't violate the rights of others.

Personally Dixie I don’t much give a rat’s ass what the Supreme Court decides. They’re the same corrupted bastards that said Obama-care was constitutional. It’s the same institution that has upheld unconstitutional law throughout its history. It’s the same institution who’s so-called justices are simply nothing more than partisan ideologue extensions of the bastard politicians that promoted them to their lifetime tenure.

 

[philly rabbit]

Horseshit. It represented one state supreme court justice challenging the laws to put his own religious beliefs on display.

Religion and politics are joined at the hip in America and it's impossible to discuss American history and it's people without also referring to that people's religion in an historical context.

And your horseshit is using the judicial system to censor that symbolism of historical context.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Religion and politics are joined at the hip in America and it's impossible to discuss American history and it's people without also referring to that people's religion in an historical context.

And your horseshit is using the judicial system to censor that symbolism of historical context.

If it were symbolic it would be one thing. Bt this was a blatant violation of the US Constitution. The historical context is negated when you allow no other symbols to be displayed. The historical context is negated when a single state supreme court justice determines that the monument in question was placed in the courthouse lobby and decided that no other display was allowed.

How can a judge claim to be unbiased when he decides that one single faith is represented by a huge monument and every other faith would be denied any representation?

 

[Robo]

Religion and politics are joined at the hip in America and it's impossible to discuss American history and it's people without also referring to that people's religion in an historical context.

It’s also impossible to discuss American traditional religious policy developed by our founders and ratified by the States.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof……..”(Amendment One, United States Constitution)

 

[Independent]

It’s also impossible to discuss American traditional religious policy developed by our founders and ratified by the States.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof……..”(Amendment One, United States Constitution)

Funny though, it does not say "except in public places or institutions."

 

[Robo]

Funny though, it does not say "except in public places or institutions."

Except for the fact that whenever taxpayer’s money is used to pay for a religious display. Thereby all rationality would plainly see the unconstitutional connection between “A” religion and government, huh?

Furthermore, if State law doesn’t restrict taxpayer funding of religious display and offer the “freedom” of religious exercise/display to every and all religions on public property that would not only be a violation of the Constitution’s 1st amendment, but a violation of the Constitution’s 14th amendment of “equal protection of the law,” don’t you think?

I always wondered what would the battle look like if Muslims wanted their religious display on or in a State Court House displaying some sort of Sharia law. What would the religious right have to say about that?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Except for the fact that whenever taxpayer’s money is used to pay for a religious display. Thereby all rationality would plainly see the unconstitutional connection between “A” religion and government, huh?

Furthermore, if State law doesn’t restrict taxpayer funding of religious display and offer the “freedom” of religious exercise/display to every and all religions on public property that would not only be a violation of the Constitution’s 1st amendment, but a violation of the Constitution’s 14th amendment of “equal protection of the law,” don’t you think?

I always wondered what would the battle look like if Muslims wanted their religious display on or in a State Court House displaying some sort of Sharia law. What would the religious right have to say about that?

In the situation I described in the Alabama Supreme Court, if other religions had been allowed to have their faith on display it would have been completely different.

 

[Robo]

In the situation I described in the Alabama Supreme Court, if other religions had been allowed to have their faith on display it would have been completely different.

“Completely different” is the under statement of the century! I can hear the religious right’s bellowing, pissing and moaning in my mind’s eye. Of course neither right or left ever see beyond their particular “lovin eyes,” and despise of all that doesn’t conform to their own prejudices and bigotry. Humans are the fucking stupidest animals on planet earth and they have the balls to call other animals “dumb.”

 

[philly rabbit]

It’s also impossible to discuss American traditional religious policy developed by our founders and ratified by the States.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof……..”(Amendment One, United States Constitution)

An historical monument comes under first amendment, political free speech protection and it doesn't establish a state sponsored church.

The whole idea of such a monument is to let the government .. the secular government know just who the judicial process is for, about, and by whom with whom being the people in the respective state.

 

[philly rabbit]

“Completely different” is the under statement of the century! I can hear the religious right’s bellowing, pissing and moaning in my mind’s eye. Of course neither right or left ever see beyond their particular “lovin eyes,” and despise of all that doesn’t conform to their own prejudices and bigotry. Humans are the fucking stupidest animals on planet earth and they have the balls to call other animals “dumb.”

How the people of Alabama decorate their public and private establishments is none of your secular business and if you do reside in Alabama and you object to the displays and you make up part of the numerical minority of that state, then it's up to you to move to another state of your choosing.

Your secular religion is governmental religion as it is for your progressive allies and it does not represent by any constitutional measure or law the religion of the people of any given state from a historical perspective.

 

[philly rabbit]

In the situation I described in the Alabama Supreme Court, if other religions had been allowed to have their faith on display it would have been completely different.

The other religions do not have historical significance within the boundaries of the state of Alabama and the numerical majority of the people who reside there.

The only other people who object to these displays are progressive secularists such as yourself and him who want secular governmental monuments being displayed only.

 

[Timshel]

You know what I mean. Social conservatism is not going away.

Yeah, it is.

 

[Auster]

Is it?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

An historical monument comes under first amendment, political free speech protection and it doesn't establish a state sponsored church.

The whole idea of such a monument is to let the government .. the secular government know just who the judicial process is for, about, and by whom with whom being the people in the respective state.

You keep trying to make it sound as though that monument were placed in the lobby of the State Supreme Courthouse for the sake of history. Even Roy Moore didn't make that claim.

The State Supreme Court is the highest court in the state. How can you even begin to justify a monument that lists commandments, the first 4 of which deal specifically with Judeo-Christian faith and denounce all other faiths?

This "it is historical" nonsense is pure bullshit. I was heavily invlved in the protests against that monument. I never heard one single supporter, including the Chef Justice who put it there, make any claim of it being strictly for historical purposes.

 

[Timshel]

Is it?

Yes, you are dinosaurs.

 

[Auster]

But I'm 23. My current love interest is a bit more left than I, but agrees with me enough to keep listening to my musings. Of course she works 40 hours a week and goes to school as well, so her sanity may be questionable