Alabama Chief Justice:1st Amendment only protects Christians (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/05/alabama-judge-christians_n_5267662.html

The judge best known for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building suggested earlier this year that the First Amendment only protects the religious speech of Christians.

Roy Moore, the chief justice of Alabama's state Supreme Court, spoke at a January luncheon hosted by Pro-Life Mississippi. In a video of the event obtained by Raw Story, Moore spoke on his interpretation of the First Amendment.

“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.” Moore said. “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. Buddha didn't create us. Mohammed didn't create us. It's the god of the Holy Scriptures.

Moore continued: "They didn't bring a Koran over on the pilgrim ship, Mayflower. Let's get real. Let's go back and learn our history."

Moore, who was first elected as the state's chief justice in 2001, was removed from office in 2003 after defying a federal judge's order to remove the controversial Ten Commandments monument.

"You know, when I look back, I was proud to uphold the law, the Constitution of the United States and the First Amendment, which states basically we must acknowledge God to have a moral basis for our society and to retain that freedom of conscience which every person in this state and in this country recognizes is very important," Moore said in an interview last year.

Moore was reelected to the top seat on the bench in 2012.

Outstanding that the people of Alabama re-elected this guy.

 

[Buckfast 1]

This guy is a complete moron. It's frightening that he sits at the top of a state's judicial system. But I guess that is Alabama for you.

 

[timschochet]

This guy is a complete moron. It's frightening that he sits at the top of a state's judicial system. But I guess that is Alabama for you.

That's why I posted it. It's not like he's just some judge somewhere. He's the Chief Justice!

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I wish more Christians had the integrity to own their beliefs as this guy does. If you really believe in the Christian god, does it not automatically follow that all other gods are false and should not be acknowledged or respected? Why should a true Christian acknowledge the legitimacy of any other "religion"? I respect zealots like this guy and the Westborough dudes much more than the common, half-###ed Christians who aren't willing to fully back their beliefs and act accordingly.

 

[jon_mx]

I missed the part where he said anything about Christianity. He is talking about our founding documents mentions a creator. We believe in the single diety as does Islam and Mohammed is not the creator even to Muslims. Not that the guy's interpretation of Constitutional law is that defendable, but why do you feel the need to twist his words in creating a more inflamatory title? Another terrible effort by Tim. Everything you profess to hate about Fox New, you do here.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I missed the part where he said anything about Christianity. He is talking about our founding documents mentions a creator. We believe in the single diety as does Islam and Mohammed is not the creator even to Muslims. Not that the guy's interpretation of Constitutional law is that defendable, but why do you feel the need to twist his words in creating a more inflamatory title? Another terrible effort by Tim. Everything you profess to hate about Fox New, you do here.

It's pretty clear that he's saying that the 1st Amendment is about Christianity. His argument is that the founders defined religion as the one that doesn't include Allah or Buddah. Obvious where he's going with that.

 

[timschochet]

I missed the part where he said anything about Christianity. He is talking about our founding documents mentions a creator. We believe in the single diety as does Islam and Mohammed is not the creator even to Muslims. Not that the guy's interpretation of Constitutional law is that defendable, but why do you feel the need to twist his words in creating a more inflamatory title? Another terrible effort by Tim. Everything you profess to hate about Fox New, you do here.

The title was taken directly from the article.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I wish more Christians had the integrity to own their beliefs as this guy does. If you really believe in the Christian god, does it not automatically follow that all other gods are false and should not be acknowledged or respected?

No.

Why should a true Christian acknowledge the legitimacy of any other "religion"?

Because we should be open to the possibility that maybe we're the ones who are in error. And that whole treating-others-how-you-would-like-to-be-treated thing.

 

[jon_mx]

I missed the part where he said anything about Christianity. He is talking about our founding documents mentions a creator. We believe in the single diety as does Islam and Mohammed is not the creator even to Muslims. Not that the guy's interpretation of Constitutional law is that defendable, but why do you feel the need to twist his words in creating a more inflamatory title? Another terrible effort by Tim. Everything you profess to hate about Fox New, you do here.

It's pretty clear that he's saying that the 1st Amendment is about Christianity. His argument is that the founders defined religion as the one that doesn't include Allah or Buddah. Obvious where he's going with that.

He specifically says Mohammad, he made no reference to Allah which is the equivalent God the creator in the Bible. So he appears OK with Allah. But since Buddah is not a creator, he does have a point that Buddah what was not what was referred to as the creator.

 

[jon_mx]

I missed the part where he said anything about Christianity. He is talking about our founding documents mentions a creator. We believe in the single diety as does Islam and Mohammed is not the creator even to Muslims. Not that the guy's interpretation of Constitutional law is that defendable, but why do you feel the need to twist his words in creating a more inflamatory title? Another terrible effort by Tim. Everything you profess to hate about Fox New, you do here.

The title was taken directly from the article.

You hide behind that excuse often.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It's just kind of weird. Last I checked, Muslims don't worship Mohammed. They worship Allah. Who they believe created us.

I don't particularly care how a state Supreme Court justice interprets the US Constitution, of course, because state justices aren't asked to interpret the US Constitution.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I missed the part where he said anything about Christianity. He is talking about our founding documents mentions a creator. We believe in the single diety as does Islam and Mohammed is not the creator even to Muslims. Not that the guy's interpretation of Constitutional law is that defendable, but why do you feel the need to twist his words in creating a more inflamatory title? Another terrible effort by Tim. Everything you profess to hate about Fox New, you do here.

It's pretty clear that he's saying that the 1st Amendment is about Christianity. His argument is that the founders defined religion as the one that doesn't include Allah or Buddah. Obvious where he's going with that.

He specifically says Mohammad, he made no reference to Allah which is the equivalent God the creator in the Bible. So he appears OK with Allah. But since Buddah is not a creator, he does have a point that Buddah what was not what was referred to as the creator.

I would caution against carefully parsing this guy's words and drawing sophisticated inferences based on what he did or didn't say. It's quite possible that he's just an idiot who doesn't understand Mohammed's role in Islam.

 

[timschochet]

I missed the part where he said anything about Christianity. He is talking about our founding documents mentions a creator. We believe in the single diety as does Islam and Mohammed is not the creator even to Muslims. Not that the guy's interpretation of Constitutional law is that defendable, but why do you feel the need to twist his words in creating a more inflamatory title? Another terrible effort by Tim. Everything you profess to hate about Fox New, you do here.

The title was taken directly from the article.

You hide behind that excuse often.

It's not an excuse. The title was correct. He referred directly to the "god of the Holy Scriptures." That's either Jews or Christians. Then he referred to the Pilgrims. Since there weren't any Jews on the Mayflower, we're down to Christians.

 

[jon_mx]

I missed the part where he said anything about Christianity. He is talking about our founding documents mentions a creator. We believe in the single diety as does Islam and Mohammed is not the creator even to Muslims. Not that the guy's interpretation of Constitutional law is that defendable, but why do you feel the need to twist his words in creating a more inflamatory title? Another terrible effort by Tim. Everything you profess to hate about Fox New, you do here.

It's pretty clear that he's saying that the 1st Amendment is about Christianity. His argument is that the founders defined religion as the one that doesn't include Allah or Buddah. Obvious where he's going with that.

He specifically says Mohammad, he made no reference to Allah which is the equivalent God the creator in the Bible. So he appears OK with Allah. But since Buddah is not a creator, he does have a point that Buddah what was not what was referred to as the creator.

I would caution against carefully parsing this guy's words and drawing sophisticated inferences based on what he did or didn't say. It's quite possible that he's just an idiot who doesn't understand Mohammed's role in Islam.

The guy's views would never stand up to scruntiny, but he says what he said. It is pointless to twist his words to make him appear dumber.

 

[jon_mx]

I missed the part where he said anything about Christianity. He is talking about our founding documents mentions a creator. We believe in the single diety as does Islam and Mohammed is not the creator even to Muslims. Not that the guy's interpretation of Constitutional law is that defendable, but why do you feel the need to twist his words in creating a more inflamatory title? Another terrible effort by Tim. Everything you profess to hate about Fox New, you do here.

The title was taken directly from the article.

You hide behind that excuse often.

It's not an excuse. The title was correct. He referred directly to the "god of the Holy Scriptures." That's either Jews or Christians. Then he referred to the Pilgrims. Since there weren't any Jews on the Mayflower, we're down to Christians.

Muslims still believe in the God of the Bible, they just believe the Qur' an is the final word.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I missed the part where he said anything about Christianity. He is talking about our founding documents mentions a creator. We believe in the single diety as does Islam and Mohammed is not the creator even to Muslims. Not that the guy's interpretation of Constitutional law is that defendable, but why do you feel the need to twist his words in creating a more inflamatory title? Another terrible effort by Tim. Everything you profess to hate about Fox New, you do here.

It's pretty clear that he's saying that the 1st Amendment is about Christianity. His argument is that the founders defined religion as the one that doesn't include Allah or Buddah. Obvious where he's going with that.

He specifically says Mohammad, he made no reference to Allah which is the equivalent God the creator in the Bible. So he appears OK with Allah. But since Buddah is not a creator, he does have a point that Buddah what was not what was referred to as the creator.

I would caution against carefully parsing this guy's words and drawing sophisticated inferences based on what he did or didn't say. It's quite possible that he's just an idiot who doesn't understand Mohammed's role in Islam.

This was going to be my response. It's very clear from his words that "religion" doesn't include "other religions'.

 

[timschochet]

This guy is a complete moron. It's frightening that he sits at the top of a state's judicial system. But I guess that is Alabama for you.

That's why I posted it. It's not like he's just some judge somewhere. He's the Chief Justice!

He was removed from office long ago.

Yes he was. And then he was re-elected in 2012. He is currently the Chief Justice of Alabama.

 

[RCon]

He clearly seems confused, but I don't see anywhere in the linked articles where he specifically said what is attributed in the title of the OP and/or the linked article.

 

[DiStefano]

So he has an interpretation that we disagree with. That does not make him a moron, any more than that makes justices of the Supreme Court morons when they have opinions that we disagree with. I disagree with him, but he has a historical point. At the time the US Constitution was written, the prevailing opinion of people in the US was Christian, and the prevailing different religions were offshoots of Christianity. And people in the US were sensitive to the religious wars which had occurred in Europe primarily between different interpretations of Christianity.

However, our interpretation of that amendment has evolved over time; his has apparently not.

 

[joffer]

I missed the part where he said anything about Christianity. He is talking about our founding documents mentions a creator. We believe in the single diety as does Islam and Mohammed is not the creator even to Muslims. Not that the guy's interpretation of Constitutional law is that defendable, but why do you feel the need to twist his words in creating a more inflamatory title? Another terrible effort by Tim. Everything you profess to hate about Fox New, you do here.

It's pretty clear that he's saying that the 1st Amendment is about Christianity. His argument is that the founders defined religion as the one that doesn't include Allah or Buddah. Obvious where he's going with that.

He specifically says Mohammad, he made no reference to Allah which is the equivalent God the creator in the Bible. So he appears OK with Allah. But since Buddah is not a creator, he does have a point that Buddah what was not what was referred to as the creator.

I would caution against carefully parsing this guy's words and drawing sophisticated inferences based on what he did or didn't say. It's quite possible that he's just an idiot who doesn't understand Mohammed's role in Islam.

I'd say its a lot more than possible

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Saw this a few days ago. Not even sure if how to discuss this stuff anymore.

 

[Insein]

What if we havent gone to church in awhile?

 

[Joe Summer]

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.'

Activist judges.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So he has an interpretation that we disagree with. That does not make him a moron, any more than that makes justices of the Supreme Court morons when they have opinions that we disagree with. I disagree with him, but he has a historical point. At the time the US Constitution was written, the prevailing opinion of people in the US was Christian, and the prevailing different religions were offshoots of Christianity. And people in the US were sensitive to the religious wars which had occurred in Europe primarily between different interpretations of Christianity.

However, our interpretation of that amendment has evolved over time; his has apparently not.

No, his interpretation (and yours) is objectively moronic.

Let's take some evidence. Moore says, ""They didn't bring a Koran over on the pilgrim ship, Mayflower." This, of course, is a completely irrelevant observation, because none of the Framers were alive in 1620. Moore offers absolutely no evidence that the Framers had an intention to exclude Islam, or any other religion from the operation of the First Amendment. We know that Jefferson, for example, believed no such thing.

[He] sais “neither Pagan nor Mahamedan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”
 — Thomas Jefferson, quoting John Locke, 1776


 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So he has an interpretation that we disagree with. That does not make him a moron, any more than that makes justices of the Supreme Court morons when they have opinions that we disagree with.

Nobody is saying he's a moron just for disagreeing with us -- just as, I trust, you wouldn't say he's a non-moron just for disagreeing with us.

Quite obviously, there are both moronic and non-moronic positions one may hold that disagree with ours.

The reason this guy is a moron, at least on this issue, is because his position is in the former category.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It might help to look at th source story, instead of the HuffPo link.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/02/alabamas-chief-justice-buddha-didnt-create-us-so-first-amendment-only-protects-christians/

Raw Story reports, that Moore says:

the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, thereby proving that all the people “who found this nation — black, white, all people, all religions, all faiths” knew that America was “about God.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY8xf1uJOqI

The actual speech at 0:55 talks about the Buddha etc. comments, essentially pointing out that everyone in Congress is Christian (though he leaves out Ellison, who is muslim).

At 2:25 he talks about how the DOI, USC and Washington's inaugural speech, and then 2:55 he points out that "what our country was about" included rights for "black, white, all people, all religions, all faiths.”

Personally I don't like the guy and thought it was right to remove him, and I did not realize he was on the bench again (how does that happen, anywhere?). However I would say look at his actual speech, not the HuffPo translation.

I will also point out our president was an adherent and close follower of a preacher for years and years who said far, far worse things.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I disagree with him, but he has a historical point. At the time the US Constitution was written, the prevailing opinion of people in the US was Christian, and the prevailing different religions were offshoots of Christianity.

That's not a point. The Constitution says that Congress can't prohibit the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say the free exercise of Christianity, or the free exercise of true religions. Just religion. Islam has always been considered a religion. So have Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

The First Amendment also guarantees freedom of speech, but it's not implicitly limited to 18th-century colonial dialect, protecting only the random Capitalization, of Nouns, or gratuitous Commas, spoken in pseudo-British-sounding accents.

Religions and speech of all sorts are protected.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I think the Christians forget our nation was built on the backs of immigrants of differing religious beliefs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think the Christians forget our nation was built on the backs of immigrants of differing religious beliefs.

I'm not real happy about expropriating the word "Christian" either - in LA someone in the state legislature tried to make the King James Bible the "official state book." As unconstitutional as that is, it was worse because a good deal of the state is Catholic and guess what that's not really the Catholic's go-to Bible.

 

[jon_mx]

I disagree with him, but he has a historical point. At the time the US Constitution was written, the prevailing opinion of people in the US was Christian, and the prevailing different religions were offshoots of Christianity.

That's not a point. The Constitution says that Congress can't prohibit the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say the free exercise of Christianity, or the free exercise of true religions. Just religion. Islam has always been considered a religion. So have Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

The First Amendment also guarantees freedom of speech, but it's not implicitly limited to 18th-century colonial dialect, protecting only the random Capitalization, of Nouns, or gratuitous Commas, spoken in pseudo-British-sounding accents.

Religions and speech of all sorts are protected.

The way I read what he is saying is that the founders talked about a creator, thus believing in creator = religion. I think it is a stretch, but I think that is where he is going. Mohammed and Buddha are not creators, and thus don't qualify as religion by his definition. But the belief in Allah/God would. Otherwise I am not following his logic.

 

[Kal El]

Even as a Christian, that was a stupid statement by this guy. Since I believe that we are all equal in God's eyes, freedom of religion should apply to everyone.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Even as a Christian, that was a stupid statement by this guy. Since I believe that we are all equal in God's eyes, freedom of religion should apply to everyone.

Just to be clear, does anyone have a quote where he actually says that the 1st Amendment does not apply to non-Christians? I watched some of the video, all he says that I can see is that original Founders weren't thinking about Buddha or mohammed and that the current Congress is almost all Christian. Then he says the USC & DOI apply to "all religions, all faiths", quoted in the original story. I think he's saying that the Founders and even the current Congress were/are Christian but the courts insist on writing "Christian values" out of the Constitution. That's all. I think he shouldn't even be on the bench, but right now this looks like editorializing.

 

[Kal El]

Even as a Christian, that was a stupid statement by this guy. Since I believe that we are all equal in God's eyes, freedom of religion should apply to everyone.

Just to be clear, does anyone have a quote where he actually says that the 1st Amendment does not apply to non-Christians? I watched some of the video, all he says that I can see is that original Founders weren't thinking about Buddha or mohammed and that the current Congress is almost all Christian. Then he says the USC & DOI apply to "all religions, all faiths", quoted in the original story. That's all. I think he shouldn't even be on the bench, but right now this looks like editorializing.

Oh, ok. Still, nobody should get special treatment in their practice of religion. In the interest of full disclosure, and at the risk of hijacking this thread, I'd admittedly like to see everyone become a Christian, but I know that won't happen.

 

[Joe Summer]

I disagree with him, but he has a historical point. At the time the US Constitution was written, the prevailing opinion of people in the US was Christian, and the prevailing different religions were offshoots of Christianity.

That's not a point. The Constitution says that Congress can't prohibit the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say the free exercise of Christianity, or the free exercise of true religions. Just religion. Islam has always been considered a religion. So have Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.The First Amendment also guarantees freedom of speech, but it's not implicitly limited to 18th-century colonial dialect, protecting only the random Capitalization, of Nouns, or gratuitous Commas, spoken in pseudo-British-sounding accents.

Religions and speech of all sorts are protected.

The way I read what he is saying is that the founders talked about a creator, thus believing in creator = religion. I think it is a stretch, but I think that is where he is going. Mohammed and Buddha are not creators, and thus don't qualify as religion by his definition. But the belief in Allah/God would. Otherwise I am not following his logic.

The words "creator" and "God" do not exist in the Constitution.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Even as a Christian, that was a stupid statement by this guy. Since I believe that we are all equal in God's eyes, freedom of religion should apply to everyone.

Just to be clear, does anyone have a quote where he actually says that the 1st Amendment does not apply to non-Christians? I watched some of the video, all he says that I can see is that original Founders weren't thinking about Buddha or mohammed and that the current Congress is almost all Christian. Then he says the USC & DOI apply to "all religions, all faiths", quoted in the original story. That's all. I think he shouldn't even be on the bench, but right now this looks like editorializing.

Oh, ok. Still, nobody should get special treatment in their practice of religion. In the interest of full disclosure, and at the risk of hijacking this thread, I'd admittedly like to see everyone become a Christian, but I know that won't happen.

Yeah, not saying I agree with him, I don't, but I don't think he said what that HuffPo article says he said, it doesn't even give the full context from the original RawStory report.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Even as a Christian, that was a stupid statement by this guy. Since I believe that we are all equal in God's eyes, freedom of religion should apply to everyone.

Just to be clear, does anyone have a quote where he actually says that the 1st Amendment does not apply to non-Christians? I watched some of the video, all he says that I can see is that original Founders weren't thinking about Buddha or mohammed and that the current Congress is almost all Christian. Then he says the USC & DOI apply to "all religions, all faiths", quoted in the original story. I think he's saying that the Founders and even the current Congress were/are Christian but the courts insist on writing "Christian values" out of the Constitution. That's all. I think he shouldn't even be on the bench, but right now this looks like editorializing.

Nobody is "writing Christian values out of the Constitution" because "Christian values" were never written into the Constitution in the first place.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Even as a Christian, that was a stupid statement by this guy. Since I believe that we are all equal in God's eyes, freedom of religion should apply to everyone.

Just to be clear, does anyone have a quote where he actually says that the 1st Amendment does not apply to non-Christians? I watched some of the video, all he says that I can see is that original Founders weren't thinking about Buddha or mohammed and that the current Congress is almost all Christian. Then he says the USC & DOI apply to "all religions, all faiths", quoted in the original story. I think he's saying that the Founders and even the current Congress were/are Christian but the courts insist on writing "Christian values" out of the Constitution. That's all. I think he shouldn't even be on the bench, but right now this looks like editorializing.

Nobody is "writing Christian values out of the Constitution" because "Christian values" were never written into the Constitution in the first place.

Ok I agree, tell Judge Moore. My point just being that I think that's his "point".

 

[Otis]

I would rather pay absurd taxes than live in Alabama.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I would rather pay absurd taxes than live in Alabama.

Taxes are REALLY cheap there. You'd be paying about $1500 for your $20M castle.

 

[Kal El]

Even as a Christian, that was a stupid statement by this guy. Since I believe that we are all equal in God's eyes, freedom of religion should apply to everyone.

Just to be clear, does anyone have a quote where he actually says that the 1st Amendment does not apply to non-Christians? I watched some of the video, all he says that I can see is that original Founders weren't thinking about Buddha or mohammed and that the current Congress is almost all Christian. Then he says the USC & DOI apply to "all religions, all faiths", quoted in the original story. That's all. I think he shouldn't even be on the bench, but right now this looks like editorializing.

Oh, ok. Still, nobody should get special treatment in their practice of religion. In the interest of full disclosure, and at the risk of hijacking this thread, I'd admittedly like to see everyone become a Christian, but I know that won't happen.

Yeah, not saying I agree with him, I don't, but I don't think he said what that HuffPo article says he said, it doesn't even give the full context from the original RawStory report.

In that case, that's just bad journalism.

 

[B-Deep]

I think what he meant is crystal clear, and rather than trying to justify this idiot's words everyone should be pointing out he is an idiot

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think what he meant is crystal clear, and rather than trying to justify this idiot's words everyone should be pointing out he is an idiot

I forgot to mention: he's an idiot.

He also was removed from the bench. What kind of insanity allows a judge removed from the bench to be put back on the bench?

 

[Henry Ford]

It's just kind of weird. Last I checked, Muslims don't worship Mohammed. They worship Allah. Who they believe created us.

I don't particularly care how a state Supreme Court justice interprets the US Constitution, of course, because state justices aren't asked to interpret the US Constitution.

Wait, what?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's just kind of weird. Last I checked, Muslims don't worship Mohammed. They worship Allah. Who they believe created us.

I don't particularly care how a state Supreme Court justice interprets the US Constitution, of course, because state justices aren't asked to interpret the US Constitution.

Just to be clear, they pretty much treat Mo as an extension of God Himself, his voice, his prophet on Earth. Denigrate Mo by oh say drawing a cartoon of him, even a nice one, and you end up on the gallows some places.

And state judges have to interpret the USC all the time.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It's just kind of weird. Last I checked, Muslims don't worship Mohammed. They worship Allah. Who they believe created us.

I don't particularly care how a state Supreme Court justice interprets the US Constitution, of course, because state justices aren't asked to interpret the US Constitution.

Wait, what?

Fair enough. They are tasked to follow federal precedent, but there is no Alabama precedent for what the 1st Amendment means.

 

[Joe Summer]

It's just kind of weird. Last I checked, Muslims don't worship Mohammed. They worship Allah. Who they believe created us.

I don't particularly care how a state Supreme Court justice interprets the US Constitution, of course, because state justices aren't asked to interpret the US Constitution.

Just to be clear, they pretty much treat Mo as an extension of God Himself

If Muslims treated Muhammed as an extension of God, then they would believe that Muhammed was a creator. Circular logic, catch it.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It's just kind of weird. Last I checked, Muslims don't worship Mohammed. They worship Allah. Who they believe created us.

I don't particularly care how a state Supreme Court justice interprets the US Constitution, of course, because state justices aren't asked to interpret the US Constitution.

Just to be clear, they pretty much treat Mo as an extension of God Himself, his voice, his prophet on Earth. Denigrate Mo by oh say drawing a cartoon of him, even a nice one, and you end up on the gallows some places.

Yes, I can't think of any other religion that treats a [purported] prophet figure as the extension of a divine creator. None at all.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's just kind of weird. Last I checked, Muslims don't worship Mohammed. They worship Allah. Who they believe created us.

I don't particularly care how a state Supreme Court justice interprets the US Constitution, of course, because state justices aren't asked to interpret the US Constitution.

Just to be clear, they pretty much treat Mo as an extension of God Himself

If Muslims treated Muhammed as an extension of God, then they would believe that Muhammed was a creator. Circular logic, catch it.

I agree to that point, no you're both right on that.

Mohammed does claim to write the word and law of God though and that is treated as just exactly that, the very words of God as spoken by God to Mohammed (which oddly enough no one else could hear, but anyway...).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's just kind of weird. Last I checked, Muslims don't worship Mohammed. They worship Allah. Who they believe created us.

I don't particularly care how a state Supreme Court justice interprets the US Constitution, of course, because state justices aren't asked to interpret the US Constitution.

Just to be clear, they pretty much treat Mo as an extension of God Himself, his voice, his prophet on Earth. Denigrate Mo by oh say drawing a cartoon of him, even a nice one, and you end up on the gallows some places.

Yes, I can't think of any other religion that treats a [purported] prophet figure as the extension of a divine creator. None at all.

Uh, not going to get into that, probably a whole other thread and you may be right, was just pointing out something there.

I don't think Moore's self-created jurisprudence is worth exploring any further.

 

[Henry Ford]

It's just kind of weird. Last I checked, Muslims don't worship Mohammed. They worship Allah. Who they believe created us.

I don't particularly care how a state Supreme Court justice interprets the US Constitution, of course, because state justices aren't asked to interpret the US Constitution.

Wait, what?

Fair enough. They are tasked to follow federal precedent, but there is no Alabama precedent for what the 1st Amendment means.

I don't understand what you're saying here.