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

[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.

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.

No Alabama cases have ever attempted to interpret the 1st Amendment? Doubtful.

 

[jonessed]

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.

It's Huffington Post. Tim gets a lot of his stuff from there which is why he takes heat for the absurd titles.Its like when Jim would copy/paste Drudge Report articles. They are looking for the most extreme interpretation.

 

[Sand]

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.

I voted against the guy. Can't stand him. On top of the crap he pulls and says he's evidently a pretty awful administrator.

I would rather pay absurd taxes than live in Alabama.

Shouldn't that be "I am paying"? You can keep the cold, traffic, and insane tax structures. We both have nutty politicians. There is very little lacking here (in the right areas).

 

[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.

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

I am saying that Alabama courts have no jurisdiction to say that the 1st Amendment means something different in Alabama than it means in Massachusetts. Alabama courts cannot define obligations under federal law.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

...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.

I voted against the guy. Can't stand him. On top of the crap he pulls and says he's evidently a pretty awful administrator.

How can a guy get removed from the bench and then be allowed back on the bench?

That's the real question.

 

[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.

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.

I am saying that Alabama courts have no jurisdiction to say that the 1st Amendment means something different in Alabama than it means in Massachusetts. Alabama courts cannot define obligations under federal law.

I believe an AL state court is bound by the USSC, but not say the decision of a federal district court, no?

 

[Sand]

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

...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.

I voted against the guy. Can't stand him. On top of the crap he pulls and says he's evidently a pretty awful administrator.

How can a guy get removed from the bench and then be allowed back on the bench?

That's the real question.

No law against it, evidently.

 

[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.

I am saying that Alabama courts have no jurisdiction to say that the 1st Amendment means something different in Alabama than it means in Massachusetts. Alabama courts cannot define obligations under federal law.

They can't define obligations for Massachusetts, but they can define obligations for Alabama courts until overruled by the SCOTUS.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

{Jeopardy theme}

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

I am saying that Alabama courts have no jurisdiction to say that the 1st Amendment means something different in Alabama than it means in Massachusetts. Alabama courts cannot define obligations under federal law.

The Alabama Supreme Court can decide federal constitutional issues before they are appealed to the US Supreme Court, who may deny cert. So Moore can muck things up for specific litigants even if he can't set precedent beyond that.

 

[johnnycakes]

This means timmay doesn't get free speech?

 

[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.

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.

I am saying that Alabama courts have no jurisdiction to say that the 1st Amendment means something different in Alabama than it means in Massachusetts. Alabama courts cannot define obligations under federal law.

The Alabama Supreme Court can decide federal constitutional issues before they are appealed to the US Supreme Court, who may deny cert. So Moore can muck things up for specific litigants even if he can't set precedent beyond that.

{would like this, if some people didn't repress my ability to like more things}

 

[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.

I am saying that Alabama courts have no jurisdiction to say that the 1st Amendment means something different in Alabama than it means in Massachusetts. Alabama courts cannot define obligations under federal law.

The Alabama Supreme Court can decide federal constitutional issues before they are appealed to the US Supreme Court, who may deny cert. So Moore can muck things up for specific litigants even if he can't set precedent beyond that.

...and Alabama Courts will follow that ruling until it's overruled by the SCOTUS.

 

[Koya]

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.

You crazy big govt obama loving welfare state supporting Libs.

 

[Buckfast 1]

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.

You crazy big govt obama loving welfare state supporting Libs.

Pretty much IK in a nutshell.

 

[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.

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

It is an original intent arguement. He is using the Declaration of Independance as the basis for what he thinks the founders meant by religion. Not a rock solid arguement, but that seems what he is implying.

 

[dparker713]

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.

Well, that's because the Christian values were written into the laws of the individual states and the Constitution was written to prevent the federal government from messing with the states in those areas.