Not So Young But Angry Conservatives Unite

Getting sick of the progressively worse slant and obvious bias of the media? Got booted out of other sites for offending too many liberals? Make this your home. If you SPAM here, you're gone. Trolling? Gone. Insult other posters I agree with. Gone. Get the pic. Private sanctum, private rules. No Fairness Doctrine and PC wussiness tolerated here..... ECCLESIASTES 10:2- The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left.

Monday, June 27, 2005


Welcome to the New America the Leftists Want......

Read more....

Court: No Ten Commandments in Courthouses

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago

In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message.
The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.
In a stinging dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia worried publicly about "the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority."
The justices voting on the prevailing side Monday left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, saying that some displays — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.
But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.
"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.
"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.
Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.
In his dissent, Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.
Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said.
In his dissent, Scalia blasted the majority for ignoring the rule of law to push their own personal policy preferences.
"What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle," Scalia wrote.
He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
"In the court's view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be."
"The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote.
The case was one of two heard by the Supreme Court in March involving Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky and Texas. That case asks whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on the grounds outside the state capitol.
The cases marked the first time since 1980 the high court tackled the emotional issue, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets.
A broader ruling than the one rendered Monday could have determined the allowable role of religion in a wide range of public contexts, from the use of religious music in a school concert to students' recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a question that has sharply divided the lower courts in recent years.
But in their ruling Monday, justices chose to stick with a cautious case-by-case approach.
Two Kentucky counties originally hung the copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. After the ACLU filed suit, the counties modified their displays to add other documents demonstrating "America's Christian heritage," including the national motto of "In God We Trust" and a version of the Congressional Record declaring 1983 the "Year of the Bible."
When a federal court ruled those displays had the effect of endorsing religion, the counties erected a third Ten Commandments display with surrounding documents such as the Bill of Rights and Star-Spangled Banner to highlight their role in "our system of law and government."
The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal subsequently struck down the third display as a "sham" for the religious intent behind it.
Ten Commandments displays are supported by a majority of Americans, according to an AP-Ipsos poll. The poll taken in late February found that 76 percent support it and 23 percent oppose it.
The last time the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue was 1980, when it struck down a Kentucky law requiring Ten Commandments displays in public classrooms.
The case is McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693.

On the Net:
Supreme Court:


  • At 12:40 PM, Blogger owdbob said…

    Trying to get all the Commie shit done before one of the sick Bastards or Bitchs Dies.

  • At 12:47 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Bob, remember this, you can take the monuments down, but not the Spirit of God that was behind them. You may removed sacred texts from cases, but not from our hearts. And to quote Mel Gibson: "You may take our Lives, but you will never take OUR FREEDOM!"

  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    God bless...

    ...the judges that ruled in this favor anyways. It's just nice to see the underdogs win from time to time, don't you think?

    ...root, root, root for the home team... tends to get old after awhile.

    But you're right, they can't remove the SPIRIT of god, therefore, why not remove them?

  • At 3:36 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Well Kevin, some of us who like God, do take offense. That's like insulting a friend who helped you in life.

    figures you'd root for the ACLU.

    You're about as middle of the road as Ward Churchill. Sorry, Kev, you're a leftie radical.

  • At 3:42 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    well not that i mind being called a leftie radical -- but i can assure you that in the american culture in which we live, i am FAR from a leftist radical.

    I think you need to check yourself and realize that you are much further to the right, specifically the fundamentalist Christian right, than I am towards any left.

    Religion and government don't mix well. Case in point: look at the middle east.

  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Religion, if it guides government in the moral ways and right way is fine. Here's what screws the deal, HUMAN BEINGS. God doesn't screw up a thing, we do that fine on our own......

    I do not think that the government should tamper with my right to worship as I see fit. Neither do I think one denomination, ie Presbyterians or Catholics, should rule my life. However, there is a point where the two need eachother and for much more than votes, power, or tax status.

    Agree or disagree?

    Kev, I make no bones about being to the right of center, probably further right than some of the more outspoken so-called Christians. Should you worry that I rate between Whig and Nazi on a Columbia University online test?

    I do not, since Columbia despises most who are right of their political view. Bunch of Trotskyites.....

  • At 9:36 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Well, I sort of agree. I would be entirely willing to give you the argument except for that I know you are not speaking truthfully.

    If you truly believed what you said, about religion guiding government, then you wouldnt have post after post of anti-mid-east morals and religion (and government for that matter).

    The flaw in your logic is that you are saying that we should use the teachings of God to represent the moral stanse of a country (through government). The flaw is that by using such an argument, I know that YOU specifically are only relying upon whom you see as THE GOD. God, however, is a generic word used to describe many Gods that many different people believe in. So again, it first suggests that their God is wrong, yours is right, and therefore, your morals are right.

    Who can define morals? Certainly not god, as they differ from God to God. Therefore, morals are defined in government by man.

    Also, the government is NOT tampering with your right to worship in any way shape or form. If anything, it is letting people of NON-CHRISTIAN backgrounds know that the public house in which they are about to enter is neutral to whatever religion they may hold. You can still pray before entering a courthouse just because the 10 commandments aren't posted, can't you?

    There is nothing wrong with having religion in government, it just shoudlnt be used to make logical arguments as religion is inherantly illogical (less you have faith in the particular religion)

  • At 4:27 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Religion is illogical my ass! Yeah, Isaac Newton, Johannes Keppler, and Galeleio were all religious also, pal! Give me a break.

    Spare me your 8th Grade Michael Moore crap! We have nil to discuss Kev.

    Now, since it's Christians, it's fine to degrade and hurt them, isn't it?

  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    ...of course not.

    I don't think that unique teachings of the Koran should be posted outside of courthouses in countries that are predominantly Muslim either.

    In fact, I don't think that should happen directly because of the inherant problem a Christian would face if s/he were prosecuted in such a courthouse.

    You keep thinking I'm out to get Christians, but I think you are just not reading everything that I am writing. Either that, or you are just choosing to interpret what you read, rather than read it verbatim.

    So with that, I will say:

    I am as openly against OTHER religious majorities having governmental influence in their countries as I am against Christianity having influence within ours.

    Having said that, if this were a blog in Pakistan and you were a Muslim Pakistani, I would most certainly be telling you that your 'laws' of Islam should not be running your country.

  • At 9:48 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Also, given the topic, don't you find it slightly irnoic, if just not downright proving of my point, to have mentioned that Galileo was religious? ..furthermore to exclaim 'Religion is illogical my ass!'

    ummm, what happened to Galileo again?

    Next time you're in prison, be sure to stare at the sun as it revolves around our lonely planet -- as God had intended it to do.

    If it suits you better, I'll change my comments to: religion is inherantly illogical when subjected to interpretation.

    Or do you think he should have been imprisoned?

    I'd say thats a pretty clear cut example of why NOT to have religion guide the laws of the land.

    If you'd like to read about it, here is a good link:

  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Keep backpeddling. Your fury is against the Christians. Just admit and get on with life. You got pissed that people were human and could be hypocrites. However, I didn't see you acting any different back in the day.

    Sad to say, but no one is a choir boy. Does that mean toss out Christianity? To some, it does.

    And also, Gallelio was persecuted to an extent, but re-iterated his position that God was Creator, which he believed. Keppler, Newton, Mendel, were all Christians.

    Religion is not illogical. It's only illogical if you keep measuring it to your own inflexible standards OR if you just feel it illogical since you didn't get out of it, what YOU wanted out of it.

  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Kevin said…


    I can save you the time of writing your words -- they are not inflicting some sort of introspective pain on me. I don't feel wronged, upset, or anything else by Christianity. But, carry on as you indeed will.

    Furthermore, as always, you entirely sidestepped my entire post. You completely skipped over my portion of how I said I would say the same to a Muslim Paki defending his Islamic laws governing Pakistan.

    It's not Christianity I am against, nor Islam, nor any other faith, it is simply organized religions dictating laws that I am opposed to. And as I have clearly stated time and again, the reasons for being opposed to it is because religion is not constant across the world and therefore collides with itself.

    The simple difference between you and I is that you are a nationalist, through and through. Whilst I do love my country, I hold it in no particular regard towards the rest of the world and would rather say I just love the planet, instead of one land mass upon it.

    Finally, you are just wrong. Galileo was not persecuted, he was completely ousted by the Church. In addition, he was put under the same spell that those accused of witchcraft were. Either he confess his sin and profess his faith for God, or he be punished for it. There was no choice other than his logical one of survival.

    The point is, he was NOT wrong. The Earth and other matter in OUR solar system revolve around the sun. I think you may have studied that in 2nd grade. ...and yet, he was prohibited from preaching his belief because it was biblically incorrect? What sort of logical sense does that make. Don't worry, while the question is NOT rhetorical, I am sure you will avoid it.

    Finally, I can not see any logic in arguing the point in the first place. Einstein was a Jew and god knows he was pretty clever. Is your argument suggesting that genius Christians prove Christianity in some way? Wouldn't Einstein's faith also prove Judiasm?

    If so, then we have just arrived at yet another contradiction. If not, then a claim of --uber-intelligent scientists that follow a faith suggest the faith has logical meaning-- is illogical alltogether. Less you tell me Einstein was not a genius who also had very strong faith in religion.


Post a Comment

<< Home