Alabama cheif justice says the 1st Amendment is only for Christians

[Lenore]

The point is, he did NOT say that the first Amendment was only for Christians. He didn't say anything even remotely approaching that.

 

[Political Junky]

Ol Roy Moore just makes everyone love the South.
BTW, Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran, which I'm sure he read.

 

[candycorn]

Yea MSNBC pretty much just made shit up. Don't lose any sleep over this man.

Which is why anything from Fox, MSNBC, or healthmyths should be rejected prior to wasting the time to read.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He didn't say that. His comments ere interpreted and spun by MSNBC writer Claire Kim. Let it go lefties, you lost the battle.

So tell us what he meant.

 

[hangover]

What's going to happen when Muslims in congress break out their prayer rugs during prayer time?

 

[kidrocks]

The point is, he did NOT say that the first Amendment was only for Christians. He didn't say anything even remotely approaching that.

No, that is YOUR point and you seem to be helplessly stuck on that point and only that point. What are you afraid of? Why don't you share with us what you think the chief justice meant by his choice words?

 

[Lenore]

It's the only point the OP made. I don't understand why we're still talking, when it's been proven that you're lying in the thread title. Other than that, all you've done is demand that other people re-state what the guy has already said.

What other point ARE you trying to make? Go ahead and make one and we'll see if it's true or not. So far you're not doing so great.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The point is, he did NOT say that the first Amendment was only for Christians. He didn't say anything even remotely approaching that.

Then tell us what he meant, or at least what you think he meant. He meant something, right?

Tell us what that is.

 

[Navy1960]

Having watched the whole video, I didn't catch where he said anything about the 1st Amendment being only for Christians. What I did gather from his speech is that he was a Christian and that his life experiences have led him along that path. So be it, he as are all Americans entitled to their own journey, as long as his decisions in the court room do not reflect any bias towards any other beliefs, and he does not use his views as a basis for rendering decisions , then there is nothing wrong with him or anyone else of any religion or non religion for that matter expressing their beliefs.

 

[Lenore]

The point is, he did NOT say that the first Amendment was only for Christians. He didn't say anything even remotely approaching that.

Then tell us what he meant, or at least what you think he meant. He meant something, right?

Tell us what that is.

I'm sorry, is English your second language? Presumably he meant what he said.

 

[Avatar4321]

Maybe he thinks we need it more than others since others seem to do fine without protection.

 

[ogibillm]

He already did elaborate. The justice did not say that the first amendment is for Christians only.

Your thread title is a lie.

You've had several people call you on it.

I don't understand this forum...does everybody get to violate the stated rules? Are they really old or something?

what he did was define religion as 'the duties we owe to the creator and the manner of discharging it.'

okay, so that's religion in his mind. then he went on to say
'Buddha didn’t create us. Mohammed didn’t create us. It’s the god of the Holy Scriptures”

so what he's saying is religion is only religion if it worships the creator, and since he only acknowledges the god of christianity as the creator he is in effect ruling out all other faiths as relgions. if they are not religions they are not protected by the first amendment.

do you disagree with my assessment and why?

 

[NYcarbineer]

He already did elaborate. The justice did not say that the first amendment is for Christians only.

Your thread title is a lie.

You've had several people call you on it.

I don't understand this forum...does everybody get to violate the stated rules? Are they really old or something?

what he did was define religion as 'the duties we owe to the creator and the manner of discharging it.'

okay, so that's religion in his mind. then he went on to say
'Buddha didn’t create us. Mohammed didn’t create us. It’s the god of the Holy Scriptures”

so what he's saying is religion is only religion if it worships the creator, and since he only acknowledges the god of christianity as the creator he is in effect ruling out all other faiths as relgions. if they are not religions they are not protected by the first amendment.

do you disagree with my assessment and why?

Muhammed was a prophet, not God the Creator. Allah is the Creator; Allah and the Christian God are one and the same.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The point is, he did NOT say that the first Amendment was only for Christians. He didn't say anything even remotely approaching that.

Then tell us what he meant, or at least what you think he meant. He meant something, right?

Tell us what that is.

I'm sorry, is English your second language? Presumably he meant what he said.

So you're incapable of putting in your own words what he meant, but you're insisting that others' interpretation of what he meant is wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Having watched the whole video, I didn't catch where he said anything about the 1st Amendment being only for Christians. What I did gather from his speech is that he was a Christian and that his life experiences have led him along that path. So be it, he as are all Americans entitled to their own journey, as long as his decisions in the court room do not reflect any bias towards any other beliefs, and he does not use his views as a basis for rendering decisions , then there is nothing wrong with him or anyone else of any religion or non religion for that matter expressing their beliefs.

So liberals shouldn't care about conservatives being appointed to judicial positions, because their conservatism never shows up in their decisions?

lol

 

[WinterBorn]

Having watched the whole video, I didn't catch where he said anything about the 1st Amendment being only for Christians. What I did gather from his speech is that he was a Christian and that his life experiences have led him along that path. So be it, he as are all Americans entitled to their own journey, as long as his decisions in the court room do not reflect any bias towards any other beliefs, and he does not use his views as a basis for rendering decisions , then there is nothing wrong with him or anyone else of any religion or non religion for that matter expressing their beliefs.

But the problem is that Roy Moore HAS shown that he is incapable of removing his bias. Putting a 2 ton monument of the 10 Commandments in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court building, and absolutely refusing to allow any other displays, shows a clear disregard for the US Constitution.

 

[g5000]

Remember, this guy is a judge, talking about the First Amendment.

A judge.

So let's take a look at his spin on the First Amendement. These are his exact words:

“Everybody, to include the U.S. Supreme Court, has been deceived as to one little word in the First Amendment called ‘religion.’ They can’t define it."

I want you to notice he said, "They can't define it." The judge is about to do just that. Pay attention.

Here is the First Amendment text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. This is EXTREMELY important in the context of what this JUDGE says next:

"They can’t define it the way Mason, Madison and even the United State Supreme Court defined it, ‘the duties we owe to the creator and the manner of discharging it.’ They don’t want to do that, because that acknowledges a creator god.”

He is actively defining what he thinks what "religion" is protected, and therefore deciding what religion is NOT protected.

Here is where he becomes very dangerous: "Buddha didn’t create us. Mohammed didn’t create us. It’s the god of the Holy Scriptures."

This JUDGE is plainly saying that only the Jewish and Christian religions are protected by the First Amendment, because only those based on the "Holy Scriptures" count as religion.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Having watched the whole video, I didn't catch where he said anything about the 1st Amendment being only for Christians. What I did gather from his speech is that he was a Christian and that his life experiences have led him along that path. So be it, he as are all Americans entitled to their own journey, as long as his decisions in the court room do not reflect any bias towards any other beliefs, and he does not use his views as a basis for rendering decisions , then there is nothing wrong with him or anyone else of any religion or non religion for that matter expressing their beliefs.

I agree - mostly. I watched the video. He doesn't say that the First Amendment applies only to Christians.

He certainly says that U.S. Law is properly viewed as an extension of Christian values. I think that legal philosophy is justifiably troubling when we're talking about a prominent judge.

But before i draw the conclusion that his rulings deviate from U.S. law in favor of "Christian law," I'd have to see what he has ruled. And honestly, I'm not interested enough to dig through his rulings.

Just saw this:

But the problem is that Roy Moore HAS shown that he is incapable of removing his bias. Putting a 2 ton monument of the 10 Commandments in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court building, and absolutely refusing to allow any other displays, shows a clear disregard for the US Constitution.

Very good point.

 

[g5000]

Having watched the whole video, I didn't catch where he said anything about the 1st Amendment being only for Christians. What I did gather from his speech is that he was a Christian and that his life experiences have led him along that path. So be it, he as are all Americans entitled to their own journey, as long as his decisions in the court room do not reflect any bias towards any other beliefs, and he does not use his views as a basis for rendering decisions , then there is nothing wrong with him or anyone else of any religion or non religion for that matter expressing their beliefs.

I agree - mostly. I watched the video. He doesn't say that the First Amendment applies only to Christians.

He said the only religions protected by the First Amendment are those based on the Holy Scriptures.

He said it quite plainly.

That would be Judaism and Christianity.

He very specifically excluded Buddhism and Islam from First Amendment protection.

Plain as day.

 

[ogibillm]

He already did elaborate. The justice did not say that the first amendment is for Christians only.

Your thread title is a lie.

You've had several people call you on it.

I don't understand this forum...does everybody get to violate the stated rules? Are they really old or something?

what he did was define religion as 'the duties we owe to the creator and the manner of discharging it.'

okay, so that's religion in his mind. then he went on to say
'Buddha didn’t create us. Mohammed didn’t create us. It’s the god of the Holy Scriptures”

so what he's saying is religion is only religion if it worships the creator, and since he only acknowledges the god of christianity as the creator he is in effect ruling out all other faiths as relgions. if they are not religions they are not protected by the first amendment.

do you disagree with my assessment and why?

Muhammed was a prophet, not God the Creator. Allah is the Creator; Allah and the Christian God are one and the same.

while i don't disagree with that it seems very clear that the judge does.