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

[ogibillm]

might i just say screw alabama for having elected judges, and screw the people of alabama for electing this asshole - twice.

 

[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.

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.

The fatal flaw in that assertion is that even Christians amongst themselves can't agree on what are or aren't Christian values.

 

[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.

The fatal flaw in that assertion is that even Christians amongst themselves can't agree on what are or aren't Christian values.

Sure, that's a big flaw, but even if all Christians agreed on one set of values, it still violates the principle of separation of church and state.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Watched the video again - I think he did say the First Amendment protections on freedom of religion only apply to Christians.

Because he says that when they put in the word "religion" they were talking about Christianity. Yeah, I got caught up in listening for that exact combination of words and didn't hear them so I assumed that wasn't what he was saying.

But yeah, he did say that. His words meant the same thing.

 

[g5000]

Watched the video again - I think he did say the First Amendment protections on freedom of religion only apply to Christians.

Because he says that when they put in the word "religion" they were talking about Christianity. Yeah, I got caught up in listening for that exact combination of words and didn't hear them so I assumed that wasn't what he was saying.

But yeah, he did say that. His words meant the same thing.

[MENTION=16263]nodoginnafight[/MENTION]

Thanks for having the courage to reverse yourself.

 

[kidrocks]

might i just say screw alabama for having elected judges, and screw the people of alabama for electing this asshole - twice.

Hear, hear!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The fatal flaw in that assertion is that even Christians amongst themselves can't agree on what are or aren't Christian values.

Sure, that's a big flaw, but even if all Christians agreed on one set of values, it still violates the principle of separation of church and state.

Yes, US law should be viewed as an extension of US law.

 

[bendog]

I don't know that he's advocating a state or fed govt can deny something to Buddhists, though. Nor, do I think the founders had any separation of church and state in mind, beyond prohibiting the state adopting any official religion. I think they meant to prohibit any govt from excluding any religion. HOWEVER, there was debate as to whether muslims should be allowed to be citizens. It failed, thank GOd. (-:

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't know that he's advocating a state or fed govt can deny something to Buddhists, though.

I questioned that too at first. But when you listen to what he says, he says the freedom of religion that is mentioned in the First Amendment refers to Christianity and only Christianity.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Those open minded, adolescent ,racist , woman haters.... Lol

 

[bendog]

I don't know that he's advocating a state or fed govt can deny something to Buddhists, though.

I questioned that too at first. But when you listen to what he says, he says the freedom of religion that is mentioned in the First Amendment refers to Christianity and only Christianity.

First of all, I believe what he said is incorrect. The Deists did not necessarily believe in a compassionate God, and certainly not in a concept of 'everything that happens on earth happens cause God's got a reason." Rather, they believed in a God who created free will. Moreover, as I recall, Jefferson had some initial concerns about whether muslims should be included as citizens, but there were muslim slaves in the colonies. Jews? They were here.

But, the Deists view of a creator was shaped by the old and new testaments. Moore's correct, views weren't shaped on the Koran (although at least one or two had read it). And Buddha or Hinduism. I don't think so.

However, I did not hear him say the STATE could deny free exercise to non-Christians. I suspect he'd support a notion that the STATE could display the ten commandments, but a satanic group couldn't force the state to display a satanic statue.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't know that he's advocating a state or fed govt can deny something to Buddhists, though.

I questioned that too at first. But when you listen to what he says, he says the freedom of religion that is mentioned in the First Amendment refers to Christianity and only Christianity.

First of all, I believe what he said is incorrect. The Deists did not necessarily believe in a compassionate God, and certainly not in a concept of 'everything that happens on earth happens cause God's got a reason." Rather, they believed in a God who created free will. Moreover, as I recall, Jefferson had some initial concerns about whether muslims should be included as citizens, but there were muslim slaves in the colonies. Jews? They were here.

But, the Deists view of a creator was shaped by the old and new testaments. Moore's correct, views weren't shaped on the Koran (although at least one or two had read it). And Buddha or Hinduism. I don't think so.

However, I did not hear him say the STATE could deny free exercise to non-Christians. I suspect he'd support a notion that the STATE could display the ten commandments, but a satanic group couldn't force the state to display a satanic statue.

I think that's been confirmed with his display of the 10 Commandments at his courthouse, while denying display privileges to other religions. But the confirmation that his actions provide aside, it's very clear to me that what he said is that First Amendment protections don't apply to religions other than Christianity.

 

[martybegan]

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

No, I don't think so. I think I'll start a petition to unseat/impeach that bad chief justice.

Do you live in Alabama?

 

[bendog]

Well, I'd agree that his comments could logically infer he thinks the State can deny free exercise to non-Christians by, for example, saying "no mosques inside the town limits." But, without him explicitly saying it, I'm not going to opine.

Neverthess, his reasoning and ideas as to history have serious flaws. Not the least of which is that there's no doubt the founders were acquated with Jews. If he's gonna say the Founders only accepted Judeo-Christian religions, he's got a problem since the muslim god's sort on on a first name basis with the muslim one.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't know that he's advocating a state or fed govt can deny something to Buddhists, though. Nor, do I think the founders had any separation of church and state in mind, beyond prohibiting the state adopting any official religion. I think they meant to prohibit any govt from excluding any religion. HOWEVER, there was debate as to whether muslims should be allowed to be citizens. It failed, thank GOd. (-:

And Roy Moore has already defied the US Constitution's prohibition of adopting a state religion. So even in the mildest interpretation, Moore was flagrantly unconstitutional in his actions when he put that monument in the lobby of the state Supreme Court building.

So his actions have shown that he is perfectly willing to deny all faiths but two (or one if you consider Judeo-Christian a single faith).

 

[nodoginnafight]

Well, I'd agree that his comments could logically infer he thinks the State can deny free exercise to non-Christians by, for example, saying "no mosques inside the town limits." But, without him explicitly saying it, I'm not going to opine.

Neverthess, his reasoning and ideas as to history have serious flaws. Not the least of which is that there's no doubt the founders were acquated with Jews. If he's gonna say the Founders only accepted Judeo-Christian religions, he's got a problem since the muslim god's sort on on a first name basis with the muslim one.

I respect your opinion - or lack of one : )

But I think he says it pretty clearly (upon further review) At first I was so intent on listening for that exact combination of words. When I didn't hear them, I concluded the same as you. But when I listened again and just processed what he was saying .... well ... I think it's very plain.

But I do agree 100% about his revisionism.

 

[bendog]

I respect your opinion - or lack of one : )

But I think he says it pretty clearly (upon further review) At first I was so intent on listening for that exact combination of words. When I didn't hear them, I concluded the same as you. But when I listened again and just processed what he was saying .... well ... I think it's very plain.

But I do agree 100% about his revisionism.

What's really scary is IF he does believe the First would allow a "no mosque policy, then the limit on the State would be equal protection, or requiring the State have a really good reason for "no mosques." I have no doubt that he'd think a good reason was protecting society from corruption.

 

[ABikerSailor]

He said Buddha and Mohammed didn't create us.

At no time did he say the first amendment was only for Christians.

The thread title is a lie.

Interestingly enough, if he's saying that Buddha and Mohammed didn't create us, he's absolutely correct, but I'm pretty sure that he knows nothing about those belief systems.

Mohammed was a prophet, someone who claimed that God spoke directly to him, which is why he founded his own religion.

Buddha was someone who spent a lot of his life searching for some deeper meaning, and eventually found something that worked for him, and he explained those same principles that he'd found that worked for him, and a whole bunch of people thought it was a good idea and started following it as well.

Neither Buddha nor Mohammed ever said that they were God, and both of them acknowledged that there was something out there that was much bigger than they were.

 

[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.

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.

Again, I have no problem with anyone expressing their beliefs as long as those beliefs are not used as a basis for legal decision and still further others of different beliefs are excluded from expressing theirs. If the Judge did indeed show bias in regards to a monument and refuse to allow others of other faiths to do the same then he should be removed from the bench as he shows a clear lack of understanding as to what "free exercise means" .